Gender Pay Gap
 - Question

Baroness Thornton: To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to speed up progress on closing the gender pay gap.

Baroness Barran: My Lords, the gender pay gap has fallen by approximately a quarter in the last decade. It was a Conservative Government who introduced gender pay gap reporting, building on the robust equal pay protections already in the Equality Act. This has motivated employers to look at their pay data and improve workplace equality. To accelerate progress we have supported legislation to enhance flexible working, extend redundancy protection for those on maternity leave and introduce carers’ leave.

Baroness Thornton: I thank the Minister for that Answer and particularly welcome the flexible working initiative. Given those endeavours, have the Government made any assessment of how quickly we might bring forward the expected date of 2044 for getting to equal pay? I invite the Minister to support the Labour policy that we should enshrine in law a full right to equal pay for black, Asian and ethnic-minority people, and disabled people, phasing this in to help employers. Does the Minister think that is a good idea?

Baroness Barran: In response to the noble Baroness’s first question, as she understands very well, a number of factors influence how quickly the gender pay gap will decline. Obviously, there is so much research now on the value of a diverse workforce and how that improves profitability and competitiveness; we hope it will accelerate. In relation to ethnicity pay gap reporting, the noble Baroness will be aware that this gap is 2.3%, much smaller than the gender pay gap. We are working on promoting our guidance on how to address this through employer groups. In relation to disability reporting, following the successful court action we are reviewing our responses to the consultation.

Baroness Burt of Solihull: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the value of any employee should be based on the contribution that they will make to the organisation, not what they were earning before? Research by the charity Fawcett found that 61% of job applicants asked about previous salary history said that it damaged their confidence to negotiate a better salary. Does she  not agree that this requirement bakes in gender, race and disability inequality and prevents people on lower salaries ever making the salary strides they need?

Baroness Barran: Those were some of the questions we explored in our pay transparency pilot, which looked at the impact of requiring employers to put salary information into their job recruitment advertisements and not asking about previous salaries. We plan to publish the methodology for that so that employers can adopt it. We will also do more work to look at the challenges of implementation.

Lord Hunt of Wirral: Does my noble friend the Minister share my concern about the gender pay gap in pensions, which just accumulates in historical terms to create a very serious problem in the future?

Baroness Barran: My noble friend is absolutely right. Last June, DWP published an official measure of the gender pensions gap, which is currently 35% in private pensions. The reforms that we brought in will mean that 3 million women will benefit by more than £550 per year by 2030 and that the gender pensions gap will equalise by the early 2040s—more than 10 years earlier than under previous legislation.

Lord Davies of Brixton: My Lords, following the previous supplementary question, I think the Minister was referring to achieving equality in state pensions. The big problem—and what is leading to most of the gender pension gap—is the difference in the caring responsibilities, with most unpaid care undertaken by women. The Minister is correct that the Government have identified the problem; can she give a commitment to come up with a worthwhile solution?

Baroness Barran: As I have already said, the Government are working on a number of different aspects of this. Obviously, a critical part in relation to maternity leave—and the impact that, as the noble Lord rightly says, one can see on the gender pay gap —is our huge commitment to expanding the childcare offer, so that no women will be unable to return to work for lack of childcare support.

Lord Watts: My Lords, the Government have just produced a list of employers that paid below the minimum wage, in some cases for many years. Does this not show that we need stronger enforcement powers and more people checking that employers are doing their duty and paying their workers correctly?

Baroness Barran: If I have understood correctly—forgive me if I have not—the noble Lord is potentially conflating different things. Obviously, the minimum wage is a legal requirement, and the equal pay legislation addresses the same in relation to gender and other aspects. What we are seeking to do, through enabling activities around flexible working, for example, but also maximising transparency and celebrating the success of employers that have a truly diverse workforce, is to use multiple levers to get to the same goal.

Lord Lucas: My Lords, since we have made such progress in dealing with the gender pay gap, might we also turn our attention to trying to persuade employers of the importance of helping parents, most of them women, who have taken time out from their careers to bring up children, to get back into the workforce with the same status at which they left it?

Baroness Barran: My noble friend is absolutely right. Part of that is about the time it takes for working parents to get back into the workforce. Our commitments—starting this April and building up, so that there will be 30 hours of free childcare for every family with a child nine months old and above—will be crucial for achieving that.

Baroness Goudie: There is mandatory reporting —although there needs to be more—but when are the Government going to get tougher about taking proceedings against companies that do not report in their annual report or ensure that the Equal Pay Act is committed to? No companies are really being taken to court on this issue, so the Government need to step up on this.

Baroness Barran: I am more than happy to take that back to the department. The mandatory reporting applies to companies with more than 250 employees. I was not aware of the cases that the noble Baroness refers to, but I am happy to pick that up.

Baroness Hussein-Ece: My Lords, the right to request flexible working has made major strides for women since it was introduced, but what if companies of a certain size were also required to include possible flexible working options in their recruitment when advertising for these posts? The Minister may be aware that a recent trial in Zurich led to a massive one-third more women being hired for senior positions. Does the Minister agree that a similar trial in the UK would be worth undertaking?

Baroness Barran: A number of businesses offer flexible working from day one, and obviously there is a legal duty to do so from 26 weeks’ employment. As all noble Lords will recognise, we have seen a tremendous change in patterns of work following the pandemic, particularly flexibility between the workplace and home, and there is an increasing natural adoption of those approaches.

Baroness Berridge: My Lords, in relation to the gender pension deficit, is it the case that, when women are getting divorced and may not have legal advice, they are not taking the correct decisions—for example, they assume that the former matrimonial home is the largest asset—and not getting the pension split on divorce? Could we have some data to illuminate that and better communication to women in those situations?

Baroness Barran: As ever, my noble friend makes a very good point. I would be happy to meet her afterwards to explore how we could make that a reality.

Avanti Trains
 - Question

Lord Snape: To ask His Majesty’s Government when they next expect to meet Avanti Trains to discuss payments made to the company under the service quality regime.

Lord Davies of Gower: My Lords, officials regularly meet Avanti to discuss its performance against service quality regime targets and how it will make improvements for passengers and to the customer experience. To date, no payments have been made to Avanti under the service quality regime. The evaluation to determine the first service quality regime performance fee for April to October 2023 is currently under way.

Lord Snape: My Lords, does the Minister accept that, at a recent internal meeting at Avanti trains, various slides were produced for its management? I have some of them with me at the moment and I shall quote from them. Managers joked about receiving “free money” from the Government and performance-related payments being
“too good to be true”.
The presentation went on to say that the Department for Transport supports the firm and added:
“And here’s the fantastic thing!—if we achieve those figures”—
that is, the Government’s punctuality figures—
“they pay us some more money—which is ours to keep—in the form of a performance-based fee!!”
Does the Minister accept that this is a situation where the Treasury takes the revenue, the passengers take the strain and the directors take a bonus for providing the worst train service in the UK? This is not a policy; it is lunacy.

Lord Davies of Gower: As I referred to in my opening response, no payments have been made to Avanti under the service quality regime thus far. The department considers the comments from the leak to be a very serious issue, and expects the highest standards of culture and leadership from Avanti’s operators and senior management. We are extremely disappointed by the tone expressed in the leaked presentation. Officials have met their counterparts at First Rail Holdings, Avanti’s parent company, and spoken to the managing director to convey the seriousness of this issue. The Rail Minister has also met the chief executive of FirstGroup.

Lord Goddard of Stockport: My Lords, if the House were sitting for five days next week and the Minister had Questions every day, and he arrived six minutes late on Monday, eight on Tuesday, 10 on Wednesday, 12 on Thursday and 14 on Friday, with the remarkable phrase, “I apologise for my lateness to arrive at the Dispatch Box and hope it does not disrupt the House too much,” one of two things would happen. We would have a whip-round for an alarm clock for him, or the Chief Whip would be looking for  a new Minister, because that is accountability. Is nobody holding Avanti trains responsible? Those times I have given to the House are times of trains being late that do not qualify for any payment whatsoever. The long-suffering public are putting up with this day in and day out. Does the Minister think I am overegging it? The 9.35 for Euston was 21 minutes late in this lunchtime.

Lord Davies of Gower: The decision to award the contract to First Trenitalia was contingent on the operator continuing to win back the confidence of passengers, but as with other operators, it is a combination of things. Its train crew issues are linked to its continued lack of driver overtime and ongoing industrial action. There are many issues that contribute to this. It is not always the operators’ fault.

Lord Berkeley: My Lords, last week, the Government launched a draft rail reform Bill, which they claimed would put one organisation in charge of all the railways. It is pretty obvious that that organisation will be the Government. How will that actually improve the appalling service that Avanti is still giving, in spite of the Government actually being in charge now?

Lord Davies of Gower: I thank the noble Lord for that question. We are committed to reforming the railways, and we are getting on with delivering improvements for passengers, freight customers and the taxpayer now. Rail reform remains a priority for government. Our priority for the next 12 months is delivering the improvements I just mentioned, and we are focused on collaborating with the sector to lay the foundations for a reformed industry, taking more of a whole-system perspective within the current legal framework.

Baroness McIntosh of Pickering: My Lords, does the Minister remember that Parliament passed a minimum-service requirement in the context of strike action? Is it the case that, if there is bad weather, Avanti or any other rail company can order a fleet of taxis to ensure that passengers complete their journey, but if there is a strike, no alternative transport can be so ordered? Will the Minister look into this to ensure that the Act that Parliament passed is followed to the letter?

Lord Davies of Gower: I will certainly have a look at that.

Lord Tunnicliffe: My Lords, I commend my noble friend Lord Snape for his tenacious pursuit of Avanti’s inferior performance. However, it is not just Avanti; Govia Thameslink regularly fails two-thirds of its performance measures. The industry is in a mess. Why do His Majesty’s Government not initiate legislation, already in draft, to create Great British Railways; or even better, call a general election and hand over this mess to a properly mandated Government?

Lord Davies of Gower: The noble Lord asks about the Govia Thameslink Railway service. The new service quality regime was introduced in 2023, and the targets set for that period were drawn from the best available information at that time. We have been able  to review and evaluate the outcomes of a standard set in 2022-23, with new levels for 2023-24. The department regularly discusses and reviews performance with Govia Thameslink Railway, and its service quality regime results have improved year on year. We will continue to hold it to account to deliver further improvements for passengers.

Bishop of Manchester: My Lords, a number of times in this short session, we seem to have had it suggested that somehow the Avanti staff are to blame. I suffer along with the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, regularly on that Manchester Piccadilly to Euston route. The staff are wonderful; it is not the driver’s fault if they are eight minutes late, or the fault of the person bringing you a cup of tea if they are 40 minutes late. The problem does not lie with the Avanti staff, who are working under incredibly difficult conditions. Can the Minister join me in expressing support for those staff in the work that they are doing under very trying circumstances?

Lord Davies of Gower: I absolutely agree with the right reverend Prelate. I travel from Wales on the GWR system. Yesterday, we were an hour late arriving at Paddington. The staff are very good, and they keep us informed as to what the issues are. As I have said previously, the issues are not always the operators’ fault; they are very often to do with infrastructure.

Baroness Randerson: The Minister referred to improving standards from Govia Thameslink. However, in the first year of the current contract, it failed on seven of the nine targets, which were then reduced and loosened. When the Minister says that it has improved, has it improved against the new, looser and lower targets, or has it actually improved its service to customers? Secondly, on reaching those targets, its leadership is entitled to a massive £23 million bonus. Will it achieve that on the lower targets that the Government have set?

Lord Davies of Gower: The noble Baroness asks several questions there, and I would answer by saying that the targets are proportionate to the level of investment agreed with the business plan for any given year.

Lord Woodley: On service levels, do the Government share the concerns of the RMT union about Avanti’s proposals to withdraw cash payments from its catering services? This move shows scant regard for those older and poorer passengers who use only cash. Does the Minister agree with me that it would be far better for customers to have the option of cash and card for catering services?

Lord Davies of Gower: That really is a matter for the operator; it is not for government to decide that particular issue.

Lord Beith: My Lords, LNER generally performs significantly better than Avanti, but it is now proposing to reduce the hourly service from Berwick-upon-Tweed  to a two-hourly service and lengthen journey times. How is that the improvement in passenger experience of which the Minister spoke?

Lord Davies of Gower: I must confess that I am not aware of that, but it is something that I shall take back to the department and look into.

Lord Browne of Ladyton: My Lords, why will the Government not just publish the contracts that we have with train operating companies? When I travel on Avanti back and forward, on every journey there is somebody in the carriage I am in who knows something about the contract, and I can tell you that the Government do not come out of any of those conversations well. Are all these contracts different for different train operating companies, so that they can compete with each other—because they do not seem to be? Why do the Government not just come clean and tell the people who are paying for all this nonsense what the contracts state that have been made on their behalf?

Lord Davies of Gower: The Government are very conscious that it is taxpayers’ money; they keep that in mind. As to publishing contracts, again, that is something that I would have to take back to the department.

Post Office: Executive Remuneration
 - Question

Lord Sikka: To ask His Majesty’s Government on which dates since 1999 they exercised their right as the sole share- holder of the Post Office to (1) approve, or (2) disapprove, the executive remuneration policies and amounts.

Lord Johnson of Lainston: Under current arrangements, the Government, as shareholder, approve the targets underpinning executive performance pay. Targets are typically approved on an annual basis as these schemes are usually revised each year to ensure that targets are up to date. The Government also approve CEO and CFO remuneration, in principle before their formal appointment. For the CEO, this was provided in June 2019 and, for the CFO, in January 2015. Such approvals have historically been made in line with the Government’s guidance on senior pay in the public sector at the appropriate juncture.

Lord Sikka: My Lords, it is shameful that year after year, the Government approved remuneration of Post Office directors boosted by a higher bottom line number and inflated by theft from sub-postmasters. Why has none of that so far been clawed back, and why have the Government approved bonuses for Post Office directors for appearing at the Horizon inquiry?

Lord Johnson of Lainston: I am very grateful to the noble Lord for raising this point. I think we all agree that this is an extremely distressing situation for  the postmasters involved. A committee hearing is going on in the other place, which I believe we will discuss later this afternoon. I reassure all Members of this House that the Government never approved the bonuses for the section relating to co-operation with the Horizon inquiry. Frankly, the idea that you should reward executives for performing their duty is surprising, and we certainly did not confirm those bonuses. That is a very important point. The second important point to make is that the executives, as I understand it, have paid back the portion of the bonus relating to that, but that does not change the fact that we need to review how Post Office executive remuneration functions. There has been a number of different reviews of the governance of that, and the Government are taking significant note of them.

Lord McFall of Alcluith: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, is participating remotely.

Baroness Brinton: My Lords, the Minister’s Answer just now was very interesting, given that the Post Office Limited: Shareholder Relationship Framework Document says at paragraph 7.6 that
“the remuneration of all Board members will require approval by the Shareholder”,
and remuneration that exceeds the threshold must also be approved by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. Can the Minister say what bonuses were approved after 2015? Have any additional approvals been required by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury since 2015? If the Minister does not have this information, I would be grateful if he wrote to me with it.

Lord Johnson of Lainston: Again, I am very grateful for this challenge; it is a very important discussion to have. The Government are responsible for setting remuneration for the board, while the bonuses that I think the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, was referring to relate to the Post Office executives, so we should separate the two. Both still need to be investigated—absolutely. I do not have the specific answer to the question relating to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, but I will be delighted to write to the noble Baroness.

Lord Arbuthnot of Edrom: My Lords, either the Post Office is an independent arm’s-length organisation, or it is one for which the Government are fully responsible. Does my noble friend agree that the Post Office Horizon scandal shows that never again should Ministers refuse to answer questions relating to a body in which they own all the shares?

Lord Johnson of Lainston: I pay tribute to my noble friend for the astonishing work he has done on this great travesty. I am very grateful to him personally for driving this agenda, and I agree in principle with some of the comments he has just made. There seem to be an air gap between arm’s-length bodies, the Government and Ministers. It is very important that this situation allows us to review exactly how the principle of arm’s-length bodies functions, in the sense that it does not mean they are entirely out of Ministers’  or the Government’s remit and our lines of inquiry. Noble Lords would expect that of us. They remain within reach, and the inquiry will allow us to have a significant investigation into how culture and practices can be improved in the governance of such institutions.

Lord Reid of Cardowan: My Lords, as the Minister said—well, as he implied—it is an absolute disgrace that people should be paid a bonus to turn up at a public inquiry. I am afraid it is not good enough for him to say that the Government did not approve it, because if they acquiesce in it, in practical terms they are giving their approval. So, will he take measures to disapprove of that payment? If he is not prepared to do that, I can tell him that, since retiring as a Minister, I have been at 16 public and other inquiries—so can he tell me who I write to for payment?

Lord Johnson of Lainston: I am grateful to the noble Lord for submitting his claim for attendance at public inquiries. He is absolutely right. I have to be careful with my language for many good reasons, but the idea that we should reward staff for attending an inquiry of such seriousness did seem clearly out of kilter with how the governance should have functioned at the time. Two reports have been written, the Burton report and the Simmons & Simmons report, both of which are very clear on the governance of paying Post Office staff; that the remuneration committee should have clearer direction and more resourcing; and on how the department’s policy team should interact with the Post Office. The fact that there were not necessarily enough personnel in the department overseeing some of these arrangements is now going to be reviewed very clearly.
When the Horizon inquiry moved on to a statutory footing, the idea that you should reward people for attending what was effectively a quasi-judicial environment was of course a bit bizarre. It certainly would not happen in any other environment going forward. There are huge lessons to be learned, not just for one party or one Government but for the body politic and the institution of our bureaucracy, so that we do not have bureaucratic indifference. Ministers have the opportunity to take responsibility for doing the right things and to take an active part in organisations that perhaps we felt should be completely ring-fenced and separate. I do not believe that that is the right thing to do.

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: My Lords, I should declare an interest as chairman of a public company. The Government and the regulators insist that public companies have proper arrangements for malus and clawback, so that bonuses which have been paid to people who did not deserve them can be clawed back. Does the Post Office have such a system in place? If not, why not, because the Government insist that everybody else should have outside the public sector?

Lord Johnson of Lainston: My noble friend raises a very good point. I am aware of people’s frustration over the longevity of the processes, but Sir Wyn Williams’s review will be extremely important in informing us about what has happened. I agree with  my noble friend’s point: long-term incentive plans should be as common in public sector bodies as they are in the private sector. I encourage that when looking at how we review governance in these sorts of organisations.

Lord McNicol of West Kilbride: My Lords, a recent Post Office board meeting refers to a “toxic culture of disbelief” persisting at the top, including a continuing view that some postmasters and postmistresses were guilty as charged. Until the Post Office is taken out of the compensation process altogether, nothing will change. The Minister knows that one of the advisory board’s recommendations is to do exactly that. Have the Government made any recent assessment of the impact of the Post Office’s involvement on the delivery of the compensation scheme? Also, regarding the last question put by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, the answer is yes—the Government do have a clawback mechanism.

Lord Johnson of Lainston: I am grateful to the noble Lord for that point. On the reference point at the end, I assume that we are awaiting the outcome of the inquiry, which is only right, so that we can ensure that the right things are done at the right time in the right way. I am also grateful for the prompt regarding the Government taking over the entire management of the compensation system. There is a great deal of demand for that—half the compensation processes are managed by the Government, and they have been effectively delivered. It is not for me to make such commitments, but it is clear that these discussions are going on within government to give people confidence that we are trying to do the right thing for those who have suffered so much.

Baroness Butler-Sloss: My Lords, the person who was appointed to the board by the Government—what was his or her job?

Lord Johnson of Lainston: I am not sure I fully understand the noble and learned Baroness’s question.

Noble Lords: Oh!

Lord Johnson of Lainston: Do forgive me, my Lords. Perhaps it relates to the chairman or the independent director, and it is a good point in terms of the governance of these arms-length bodies and non-commercial government companies. It is right that we review how governance functions. We all want to hear the results of the review and then work out ways to ensure that these organisations can operate with the independence they need, but with the right level of ministerial scrutiny and oversight. Ultimately, we are accountable to everyone in this House and the other place. Noble Lords and all parliamentarians need to know that we are doing our job without a high degree of interference but are accountable. That is very important, and more will be said in the future.

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: My Lords, is it not encouraging that my noble friend Lord McNicol has already started answering questions from the Dispatch Box? Does that not bode well for the future?

Lord Johnson of Lainston: In this instance, I would be delighted if the noble Lord, Lord McNicol, and I swapped places. He would be welcome to take on answering the rest of this Question, but I am afraid it has now concluded.

Shamima Begum
 - Question

Lord Dubs: To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the implications of the Court of Appeal’s judgment on 23 February depriving Shamima Begum of British citizenship, in particular with regard to whether she is now in effect stateless.

Lord Sharpe of Epsom: My Lords, we are pleased that the Court of Appeal has found in favour of the Government in Shamima Begum’s appeal against the decision to deprive her of British citizenship. It would be inappropriate to comment further, given the potential for further legal proceedings. The Government’s priority remains maintaining the safety and security of the UK.

Lord Dubs: My Lords, I am sorry but that does not get us very far. Will the Minister confirm that Shamima Begum must still be regarded as innocent, although she has said that she is willing to come back to this country and face trial? Furthermore, will the Minister confirm that it is very likely that, at the age of 15, she was trafficked away from this country to Syria? Will he finally confirm that, in the wider context, many of our partners—the United States, France, Germany, Australia, Canada, Belgium and the Netherlands—have all repatriated women and children.

Lord Sharpe of Epsom: My Lords, the Home Secretary’s powers to deprive an individual of their British citizenship are used sparingly, but they have existed in law for over 100 years. The British Nationality Act 1981 provides for the current deprivation power; Section 40(2) allows the Secretary of State to deprive any person of British citizenship should they deem it conducive to the public good to do so, but the law requires that this action proceed only if the individual concerned would not be left stateless. All decisions are made in accordance with the 1961 UN Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness. I cannot comment further on the specific case.

Lord Robathan: My Lords, Shamima Begum went to Syria as a child, but for several years as an adult she lived under the murderous, brutal, ghastly anti-Semitic regime of Islamic State. She may have had some coercion in her marriage, but she was married and had three unfortunate children, all of whom, sadly, have died. Does my noble friend think that the majority of people in this country believe that such a person, who has shown through her actions that she despises this country, its people, its values and its morals, should be given back her citizenship?

Lord Sharpe of Epsom: My Lords, I am afraid I go back to my earlier Answer: it would be inappropriate to comment further on this specific case given the potential for further legal proceedings.

Lord Reid of Cardowan: My Lords, when I was Home Secretary, I was told on a number of occasions that I could not take such action if it left someone stateless. I think that was confirmed by what the Minister said in his qualification. I do not hold a candle for Shamima Begum, and have never been known as a sympathiser of Islamist practices or beliefs, but is it not inappropriate and illegal to remove someone’s citizenship if it leaves them stateless? I would like a yes or no answer, because I may have been told the wrong thing when I was Home Secretary.

Lord Sharpe of Epsom: The noble Lord is right. The Home Secretary has the power to deprive any British national of citizenship status on conducive to the public good grounds, providing that such action does not leave the individual stateless. In this case, the Court of Appeal found for the Government on all grounds.

Lord Dobbs: My Lords, there is a strong impression that citizenship has now become a matter of judicial ping-pong, which is clearly unsatisfactory. My noble friend mentioned the British Nationality Act 1981; that is nearly 50 years old, and a lot has changed in this world since. Should we not have a fresh look at the meaning, rights and responsibilities of citizenship in this country, and is not this Chamber the best place for that debate?

Lord Sharpe of Epsom: My noble friend raises some very good points, which I am happy to take back to the Home Office. I reiterate that this power is used very sparingly and only in conducive to the public good circumstances.

Baroness Butler-Sloss: To pick up on the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, about other British citizens in the Syrian camps, are the Government thinking of reviewing how other countries are taking back their citizens or do they refuse to consider it? If so, why?

Lord Sharpe of Epsom: The Government keep all these tragic cases under careful review. Where there are compelling circumstances, we will of course look at them again. Decisions on the return of British unaccompanied minors and orphans to the UK, where feasible, and subject to national security concerns, nationality and identity checks, and so on, are made on a case-by-case basis.

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, does the Minister acknowledge that one reason why there is a call for people to be brought back to this country to stand trial in our courts is that the alleged offender—in this case, she was an appellant—has access to her own advisers and expert witnesses have access to the alleged offender to assess matters such as trafficking? SIAC  commented on the distinction between its position and that of the press, which somehow gained access to her.

Lord Sharpe of Epsom: I am grateful that the noble Baroness brought up SIAC—the Special Immigration Appeals Commission. It ruled that the legislation should be construed as requiring the Secretary of State to seek prior representations from an individual, but that in Begum’s case the failure to do so did not change the outcome or invalidate the deprivation decision. The Court of Appeal has ruled that, in fact, the legislation does not require the Secretary of State to seek representations prior to making a deprivation decision. I take the noble Baroness’s point, but SIAC’s ruling was clear.

Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, I wish to ask about the counter-extremism strategy. One in five people arrested for terrorism-related offences are now under 18, up from one in 25 in 2019. That is a worrying trend. The Government have failed to update their counter-extremism strategy for eight years now. Will they now commit to updating that cross-governmental strategy, with particular focus on preventing extremism in young people?

Lord Sharpe of Epsom: My Lords, we discussed that subject at some length last week, when talking about anti-Semitism, and of course the situation has evolved somewhat since then. I take the noble Lord’s points, but refer to some of the things that have been done and put in place by the Government on youth engagement and schools and education. For now, I will take his points back to the Home Office, but I cannot update him further.

Lord Ranger of Northwood: Does my noble friend the Minister agree that the primary function of His Majesty’s Government is national security and the security of citizens in this country? In this case, Shamima Begum being of concern to national security was a point made as to why the decision went against her. Furthermore, while I have sympathy for her as an individual, I spent last week with Andrew Drury, a filmmaker who has spent much time with her; he has described her in detail as untrustworthy and as showing no remorse for what she has been doing in her time out there. As such, with the primary function here being national security, does my noble friend agree that this is the reason that British citizenship is being withheld from this individual?

Lord Sharpe of Epsom: My noble friend raises some interesting points. As I said earlier, the Secretary of State can deprive someone of British citizenship only where he considers that it is conducive to the public good to do so. That includes consideration of the need to protect all UK citizens, both in the UK and abroad. Once again, I will not comment on the specifics of this case.

Lord Paddick: My Lords, is the Rwanda scheme, which plans to export legitimate refugees, a natural extension of this scheme, which makes those accused of terrorism someone else’s problem by depriving them of their British citizenship?

Lord Sharpe of Epsom: My Lords, I would not use a term such as “export”. I point out to the noble Lord that the asylum seekers he is talking about have arrived in this country illegally from a safe country—a point that often gets neglected to be made by certain Benches. I have explained the justification. Do we expect other countries to take responsibility for UK-grown terrorist threats? No, we commit to working closely with our partners to reduce the risk that is posed to us, collectively, by foreign terrorists.

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb: My Lords, I am not very good on the rules of your Lordships’ Chamber—I admit that—but I would have thought that the noble Lord, Lord Ranger, raising gossip here in the House is not appropriate. Furthermore, Shamima Begum has been rendered stateless by this Government’s decision, simply because Pakistan says she has never lived there and never been a citizen—

Noble Lords: Bangladesh.

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb: Sorry—I make mistakes. She is in fact stateless now.

Lord Sharpe of Epsom: I am afraid that I have to say again to the noble Baroness that the Court of Appeal found for the Government on all grounds.

Local Elections (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Order 2024
 - Motions to Approve

Lord Caine: Moved by Lord Caine
That the draft Order and Regulations laid before the House on 10 January be approved. Considered in Grand Committee on 26 February.
Motions agreed.

Reporting on Payment Practices and Performance (Amendment) Regulations 2024
 - Motions to Approve

Lord Johnson of Lainston: Moved by Lord Johnson of Lainston
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 10 January and 1 February be approved.
Relevant documents: 10th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 26 February.
Motions agreed.

Israel and Gaza
 - Statement

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: My Lords, I shall now repeat a Statement given by my right honourable friend the Minister for Development and Africa in another place on Israel and Gaza. It reads as follows:
“Let me begin by reiterating Israel’s right to defence against Hamas. We condemn the slaughter, abuse and gender-based violence perpetrated on 7 October 2023, Hamas’s use of civilian areas, its continued failure to release hostages and its ongoing launching of attacks into Israel. We are equally deeply concerned by the humanitarian situation in Gaza, with tens of thousands of innocent civilians killed and injured.
The most effective way to end fighting in Gaza—the absolute focus of our diplomatic efforts right now—is to agree an immediate humanitarian pause. This would allow for the safe release of hostages and a significant increase in the aid going into Gaza. Crucially, it would also provide a vital opportunity to establish the conditions for a genuinely long-term and sustainable ceasefire without a return to destruction, fighting and the loss of life. That is a position shared by our close partners. It is an outcome that we believe is in reach right now and we urge all sides to seize it.
Many people may ask, including some in this House: why call for a pause and not an immediate ceasefire? We do not believe that doing so, hoping it somehow becomes permanent, is the way forward. Simply calling for a ceasefire will not make it happen; there is a different and better way to stop the fighting permanently —push for a pause and then in that pause secure the sustainable ceasefire that can hold for the longer term without a return to the fighting.
The British Government have set out the vital elements to achieve a lasting peace: the release of all hostages, the removal of Hamas’s capacity to launch attacks against Israel, Hamas no longer being in charge of Gaza, the formation of a new Palestinian Government for the West Bank and Gaza, accompanied by an international support package, and a political horizon which provides a credible and irreversible pathway towards a two-state solution. Once we secure a pause, we will need to take action on all these elements to create irreversible momentum towards peace.
Meanwhile, I want to stress that Britain and our partners continue to do all we can to alleviate the suffering. We have trebled our aid commitment this financial year and we are doing everything we can to get more aid in and open more crossings. Last week, Britain and Jordan air-dropped life-saving aid to a hospital in northern Gaza. Four tonnes of vital supplies were provided in the air drop, including medicines, fuel, and food for hospital patients and staff. The  Tal Al-Hawa Hospital set up by the Jordanian armed forces is located in Gaza City and has treated thousands of patients since the start of the crisis.
Women are bearing the brunt of the desperate humanitarian situation in Gaza today. Many thousands are pregnant and will be worrying about delivering their babies safely. That is why over the weekend we also announced £4.25 million-worth of new funding for the United Nations sexual and reproductive health agency in response to an appeal for the Occupied Palestinian Territories. This new UK funding will help make giving birth safer and improve the lives of mothers and their newborn babies.
It is clear, however, that the flow of aid needs to be rapidly and significantly scaled up. We have reiterated the need for Israel to open more crossing points into Gaza, for Nitzana and Kerem Shalom to be opened for longer, and for Israel to support the UN to distribute aid effectively across the whole of Gaza. The Foreign Secretary’s representative for humanitarian affairs in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, Mark Bryson-Richardson, is based in the region and is working intensively to address the blockages preventing more aid reaching Gaza. We also continue to urge Israel to limit its operations to military targets and to avoid harming civilians and destroying homes.
We have also expressed our deep concern about the prospect of a military incursion into Rafah and its consequences. Over half of Gaza’s population is sheltering in that area, including more than 600,000 children. They have nowhere to go, and the Rafah crossing remains vital to ensure that aid can reach the people who so desperately need it.
The path to a long-term solution will not be easy. Ultimately, a two-state solution is the best way to ensure safety and security for both Israelis and Palestinians. The Foreign Secretary underlined this at the G20 Foreign Ministers’ meeting in Rio last week, and the Prime Minister and all ministerial colleagues will continue to press for this in all their engagements with regional partners, including with Prime Minister Netanyahu. We welcome the prospect of further normalisation agreements between Israel and Arab partners. We are committed to supporting their enduring success and to supporting efforts to ensure that normalisation delivers benefits for the Palestinians as well.
Our long-standing position remains that we will recognise a Palestinian state at a time that is most conducive to the peace process. The Palestinian Authority has an important long-term role to play and will need continued support from us and our partners, but it must also take concrete steps on reform. The Palestinian people need a technocratic and effective Administration who can win the confidence of the people of Gaza. We stand ready to support the Palestinian Authority to achieve this aim, following the announcement of the Prime Minister’s and previous set of Ministers’ resignation yesterday.
We also remain concerned about the situation in the West Bank, and have taken action in response to extremist settler violence.
Let me end by repeating our commitment to finding a lasting resolution to this conflict that ensures that Israelis and Palestinians can live in the future with  dignity and security. The goal of our diplomacy in the Middle East is to see an end to the fighting and to create a permanent peace based on a new political horizon for the region, and we will continue working tirelessly to make this happen. I commend this Statement to the House”.
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

Lord Collins of Highbury: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement; when I left the other place to come to the Chamber, the debate was continuing.
It is sad, but since the last Statement, there has been another month of intolerable conditions, civilian deaths, famine and disease in Gaza, and of course another month of hostages’ families in Israel living in complete anguish. The ICJ said that Israel must take measures to ensure humanitarian access; last week, the World Food Programme suspended its operations in northern Gaza; and MSF said:
“We no longer speak of a humanitarian scale-up; we speak of how to survive even without the bare minimum”,
and that bare minimum is having a disastrous effect, particularly, as the noble Lord said, on women and girls, and especially on children. Children are now suffering hugely from malnutrition, which has not only an immediate impact on their health but even much longer-term impacts, which will last throughout the rest of their lives.
Today, in the other place, in his response to Minister Mitchell’s Statement, David Lammy mentioned the report from the Association of International Development Agencies, which said that visas for 100 humanitarian workers in Gaza and the West Bank have expired or are about to expire, with no humanitarian visa renewals since the outbreak of the war, leaving many workers facing deportation at a time when Palestinian people need them most. Last week I met a worker from Action Against Hunger who had to leave Gaza. No NGO wants to break visa conditions. They will comply with regulations. They do not want to put their workers at risk. It leaves them particularly vulnerable.
Andrew Mitchell acknowledged the problem in his response today, but it is not clear what specific representations have been made to the Israeli authorities for an automatic extension of these visas on humanitarian grounds. They had been extended before, so why not now? I hope the Minister can reassure us that the Government will make the strongest possible representations to ensure that these visas are extended or renewed.
Minister Mitchell also mentioned, as the Statement did, the increase in aid, particularly this month—the air drops and more trucks going through—but what assessment have we made of that increase and what further increases are needed to meet the horrific conditions that are currently applying in Gaza? Can we assist in further air drops? Are there possible sea routes through? Can we use some of the Jordanian crossings as well as aerial routes?
I have said before that Israel must comply with all the measures set out by the ICJ—and must do so now. In the other place, Kit Malthouse asked what steps the Government are taking to enforce the ICJ’s interim  ruling—not condemning or discussing but enforcing. He asked specifically about Rafah. Do His Majesty’s Government believe that a full-scale Rafah offensive would be consistent with the ICJ ruling? I do not believe that anyone in this House thinks that it would be, so I hope the Minister can respond to it. Minister Mitchell said that
“the rulings of the Court are binding and must therefore be respected”.
We need some clarity on the sorts of messages that we are giving to the Israeli Government with regard to a possible assault on Rafah.
Obviously, we are getting to a very delicate position, particularly with some of the talks that are going on the moment. David Lammy said in the other place that
“it is through diplomacy, not debate in Westminster, that we will ultimately secure an end to this war”.
The talks in Paris over the weekend appear to be making some progress. Minister Mitchell said that he was “neither optimistic nor pessimistic” but that the Government were completely committed to ensuring that the talks are successful. I hope the Minister can tell us exactly what we are doing and particularly what the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, is doing, to ensure that we are working with our allies to do our utmost to ensure that those talks are successful.
I think that most people in this House agree that both sides should stop fighting now and all hostages should be released. We also agree, when talking about a two-state solution, that we need—as the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, said earlier this month—to work with our international partners to give hope to that process and to move towards recognising a Palestinian state—not wait for the end of the process but give hope so that talks and negotiations can succeed. Does the Minister agree—because David Lammy made this call—that there is an opportunity for the Government and the Opposition to work together to support that diplomatic process to deliver a two-state solution?
I suspect that the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, agree with many of the things that I have said. I hope that in the debate next Tuesday we can focus on some of these issues. I believe that this is a time when, for once, we should put politics aside, and I hope that the Government and the Official Opposition, who genuinely share the same aspirations and positions, can work together, so that we can—as David Lammy called for—put out a joint statement calling for an immediate humanitarian ceasefire. I hope the Minister agrees with that.
In terms of the talks that are currently ongoing, I hope that we will be able to have some positive news when we debate this issue next Tuesday, but I know the Minister is not in a position to give definite answers. I hope that he will remain committed, and I know that he has been working tirelessly on this issue, to ensuring that we can achieve peace and security in the Middle East.

Baroness Smith of Newnham: My Lords, I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Collins, does not wish this to become partisan, but I remind the House that in these Statements there are not just His Majesty’s Government and His Majesty’s loyal Opposition; the Liberal Democrats also have an opportunity to raise a  few questions. In the absence of my noble friend Lord Purvis of Tweed, I will raise some questions on aid and will press a little more on the question of a two-state solution and the international context.
The noble Lord, Lord Collins, has talked a lot about aid, but I wonder whether the Minister could say a little more about what tripling aid means. Tripling sounds great, but what does that mean in practice? What does
“Four tonnes of vital supplies”
actually mean? What percentage of people who have been displaced in Gaza are actually being fed through the aid that is coming through? What percentage of people in Gaza are without food and clean water at the moment? Getting a sense of the real numbers is important.
Clearly, we support the Government in trying to get as much aid in as possible, but, like the Official Opposition, we are calling for a ceasefire. Can the Minister say a little more about why His Majesty’s Government seem so reluctant to say that there should be a bilateral ceasefire, which would appear to be the most effective way of ensuring that aid can get through and providing an opportunity to negotiate for the return of all the hostages?
In particular, I note that Minister Mitchell in the other place talked about a two-state solution and said that His Majesty’s Government’s position is that
“we will recognise a Palestinian state at a time that is most conducive to the peace process”.
Can the Minister tell us how the Government will know when it is most conducive to the peace process? Is there some thinking in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office about what that would actually mean? Can the Minister tell us a little more about His Majesty’s Government’s sense of a pathway towards a two-state solution, and what he, and particularly the Foreign Secretary, will be saying to Israel and to the Palestinian Authority about ways towards that?
Finally, in all the penumbra of the situation in Israel and Gaza there is the spectre of Iran in Yemen, Iraq and Syria and on the border with Lebanon. Have His Majesty’s Government given any further thought to proscribing the Iranian Revolutionary Guard and what assessment have they made of the wider security situation, particularly on Israel’s northern border with Lebanon?

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: My Lords, I am grateful to both the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and the noble Lord, Lord Collins, for their questions.
I first put on the record my thanks to the noble Lord; he mentioned talking as one. Your Lordships’ House, the other place and indeed this Parliament have shown that when it matters on key issues, we do come together, as we have done on Ukraine. There is very little between the approach of both His Majesty’s Official Opposition and the Government.
I will continue to brief directly. The noble Lord will be aware that a number of His Majesty’s Opposition Front Bench have come to see me; I have updated them regularly. I have also had an opportunity to update the leader of the Liberal Democrats directly at the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office  and to help to facilitate direct engagement as well. It is important that both the Israelis and the Palestinians know that we are fully engaged in our approach.
I will first say that both I and my noble friend Lord Cameron are fully immersed in this. Indeed, just prior to arriving in your Lordships’ House, I was with him discussing this very issue. We are very much engaged on the current live discussions. There is a trailing in the media. Of course we want an immediate stop in the fighting. It goes without saying. We can play on— I have said this from the start—whether it is a pause, ceasefire or cessation, but we need to make sure that the fighting stops and that the conditions are there to allow for it to stop on a permanent basis. We do not want any loss of life. If there is a legacy that we can provide to those 1,200 Israelis who lost their lives and to the now thousands who have lost their lives in Gaza, it is ensuring that on this occasion, the end means the end, and that we build that sustainable peace and deliver the two-state solution that everyone wants.
Picking up on the specifics, I should say that some progress is being made on the negotiations. I talked to the lead negotiator and the Deputy Foreign Minister of Qatar on Saturday; he updated me on some of the specifics, including the challenges that remain. My noble friend the Foreign Secretary has been directly engaging with the Israeli Government. When he met Prime Minister Netanyahu, of course the conversation was wide-ranging, I assure the noble Lord, Lord Collins. We also land the quite specific points about the importance of the UN operations and all the different agencies on the ground there, notwithstanding some of the issues. We have rightly had concerns raised about UNRWA, but we have been working through that to ensure that other agencies get the support they need and, as the noble Lord, Lord Collins, said, the visas to operate. We use every opportunity to make that very clear. To be frank, the Israeli Government themselves also recognise the importance of that humanitarian support. International humanitarian law is important, and Israel’s obligations under that as a state are very clear.
In terms of success—the optimism or the pessimism— I am an eternal optimist. I always say that, in the most challenging situations, you look for that silver lining, to see how we can actually focus and amplify that hope so that we can get a result. That is where both I and the Foreign Secretary have been fully focused.
The noble Lord, Lord Collins, mentioned the hostage families. A week or so ago, together with the Prime Minister, I met the hostage families at No. 10. They also had other meetings while here in London, which the UK Government facilitated. That again shows the point of the noble Lord, Lord Collins: our diplomacy is important. We must ensure that we leave no stone unturned and no door unopened—both for the families, to give them the support they need, and to ensure that their loved ones are returned. Meeting with the hostage families is always heartrending. I have met several of them several times over, and we will continue to do so.
The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and the noble Lord, Lord Collins, raised the areas of aid and humanitarian support. I will run through some of the specifics. We are asking Israel to ensure the safety of aid convoys; to ensure that the UN has people, vehicles  and equipment, and fuel within Gaza; to open the crossings, Kerem Shalom in particular, seven days a week; to remove restrictions to ensure greater consistency on goods; to allow unencumbered access to aid coming from Jordan; to open the Ashdod port as a route for aid to reach Gaza; to open the Erez crossing to allow direct access to the north of Gaza; and to restore water, fuel and electricity connections.
The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, asked about specifics. To take one example, the £4.25 million of aid to which I alluded will ensure that the UNFPA—the United Nations sexual and reproductive health agency—can support 100,000 vulnerable girls and women in Gaza. I hope this gives a sense of the specifics on which we are focused.
The Government are pursuing a five-point plan with key partners to ensure the release of the hostages and the scaling up of aid, to which the noble Baroness referred. We are sometimes seeing a double-digit number of trucks going through on a daily basis. This is not enough. The target has always been 500 to 600 trucks. This remains part and parcel of the current agreement which we hope will get over the line and ensure that the bare minimum of 500 to 600 trucks going into Gaza is fully realised.
The issue of working with key partners remains live. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Collins, that my noble friend the Foreign Secretary was fully engaged at Munich. There will be a follow-up meeting on which I will update noble Lords appropriately. I have also again been in the Gulf, where I met with representatives of countries such as Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. We are also looking at a third element—reconstruction. We are asking every country, whether a partner in the region or our traditional partners, to say what they can do in this respect. We are seeing Qatar play an important role in hostage negotiations. There are those who can step forward and provide support for reconstruction. Countries such as Egypt are playing a vital role in influencing the Palestinian Authority: we have seen developments here. This is a collective effort. We need to ensure that we as a House and we as a Parliament speak as one and that our partners are working to the same plan.
The noble Lord, Lord Collins, alluded to the debate next week when I am sure we shall return to specifics. We want this situation to stop immediately. Whatever term we use, it has to be sustainable, but it can be sustainable only if both sides agree to it. There are those who have influence on both sides. We have strong relationships both with the Palestinians and, importantly, with Israel, which allow us to make these quite specific points. I have met civil society leaders in Israel. I last visited Israel in November and hope to do so again very shortly. No one wants this conflict to continue. Let us not forget that there are people from both the north and south of Israel living in the centre of the country because of the existing situation.
The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, also asked about the north of Israel and Lebanon. My noble friend the Foreign Secretary and I visited Lebanon together. We made a specific offer to the Lebanese army to ensure that we see a scaling down of the current rise in attacks from Hezbollah and of the conflict with Israel.  We want to ensure that the Lebanese army moves in, and that the Hezbollah grouping moves north of the Litani river. Quite specific conversations are happening in this respect. As ever, I will update both the Front Benches and specific noble Lords on this issue, beyond the official Statements, as we regularly do.

Lord Pannick: My Lords, the Minister rightly included among the vital elements for a lasting peace the removal of Hamas’s capacity to launch attacks against Israel and Hamas no longer being in charge of Gaza. How are we to achieve these aims unless Israel continues its military campaign?

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: The noble Lord raises an important point. He will know that the Israeli army is one of the most sophisticated. It has said that its operation has moved into a new phase in which it can focus on specific military targets and on where it sees that some of the missiles which continue to be launched on Israel are targeted. It has also made quite public declarations that it wishes to protect the civilian population. The Government feel, as the noble Lord will recognise, that Gaza is a small strip of land. There are currently 1.2 million people in Rafah. We have made the point to Israel that specific provision for the number of civilians in Rafah—particularly women and children—is an important consideration. I fear that a ground offensive without these provisions will result in a humanitarian catastrophe.

Lord Swire: Can my noble friend tell me how he reconciles Prime Minister Netanyahu’s recently articulated vision for post-conflict Gaza and the possibility of a two-state solution?

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: My Lords, my noble friend will know from his own time at the Foreign Office that the current Prime Minister and Government of Israel do not articulate the two-state solution. However, it is the long-standing position of successive British Governments and, as I have again articulated, it is our firm view and that of the US, key partners in Europe and key partners in the region that the two-state solution is the only solution that will provide the sustainable security, justice and peace that are equally deserved by Palestinians and Israelis.

Lord Grocott: My Lords, the Minister has repeatedly referred to the need for a sustainable peace and a two-state solution, with which virtually everyone must surely agree. The Foreign Secretary has made clear that that will inevitably include the recognition of a Palestinian state. I would like the Minister’s response to a significant but unfortunate development in the last 10 days that makes a two-state solution that much more remote: the statement by Prime Minister Netanyahu, who we have long known from his actions has no intention of recognising or accepting a Palestinian state, making it plain and explicit that Israel’s control over the West Bank will remain indefinitely and that he is totally opposed to a two-state solution. As that means violating international law, among many other things, can the Minister tell us in concrete terms, in  pursuit of a two-state solution, what representations the Government and the international community are making to the Israeli Government, but specifically to the Prime Minister, as to how on earth he expects to achieve a sustainable peace in the Middle East if the Palestinians are constantly denied a homeland?

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: My Lords, I think I have made our Government’s position clear: it needs to happen. The Palestinians deserve a state, and that is what we are working on. My noble friend Lord Cameron articulated the important issue of recognising Palestine at the appropriate time within the process that is currently under way. It does not need to happen on day one, but nor does that mean it will happen at the end of the process. It is important that we work with key partners, and the issue of recognising Palestine, including at the UN, is part of that process. It is not just the United Kingdom that has articulated that very clearly to Israel but our key partners and, importantly, the United States. The noble Lord will have heard Secretary of State Blinken be very clear that the United States rejected Mr Netanyahu’s proposals for Gaza, including security buffers. We share that position. Equally, we will implore and advocate. The noble Lord is quite right: the existence of Israel and a future Palestinian state is enshrined in UN Security Council resolutions and constitutes international law. That needs to be abided by.

Lord Walney: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Pannick’s question raises an important tension in the Government’s position. It is hard for the Minister to maintain both the laudable position that there must be no future for Hamas in Gaza, and that its capability to repeat the 7 October atrocities must be removed, and the position that the only way to a sustainable ceasefire is if both sides agree.

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: My Lords, I do not think there is a contradiction per se. First and foremost, Hamas has kidnapped Israeli citizens. As challenging as it may be, we need to ensure that, when it comes to a negotiation, those people who can deliver an outcome that we all desire—the release of the hostages —are pressurised, advocated upon and implored. That is an important bridge that the Qataris are providing. We are clear that, for the here and now, that first pillar that needs to be delivered—hostages being released and aid going in—depends on Hamas agreeing to it. We are very much focused on that. I have mentioned the important role of Qatar and, for that matter, Egypt.
Equally—and I think this is consistent—Hamas does not believe that Israel should exist. That is totally incompatible with the position of not just the UK but many countries around the world. There is a need for a reality check here: terrorism does not result in recognition as a state. We have seen in our own British history that violence is never the means to the end. The only times when organisations such as the PLO and the IRA made real progress was when they recognised that an armed struggle is no longer valid. Hamas does not believe that, which is why we believe it cannot be part of a future Palestinian Administration.

Viscount Stansgate: My Lords—

Lord Dobbs: My Lords, my noble friend has hit the nail on the head, has he not? He suggests that Hamas does not accept the right of Israel to exist, and the Israeli Government do not accept a two-state solution. When two combatants will not agree on what, as my noble friend has said, is the only solution—a two-state solution—surely the inexorable logic is to pick up on the word that the noble Lord, Lord Collins, used: enforcement. Is it not the case that the only way we will get a peace settlement in the Middle East is by the international community enforcing its will on these two combatants in a way that we have not yet considered?

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: I assure my noble friend that we are considering all elements. When we look at the two combatants, as he described them, Israel is a recognised state with international obligations and is important as a partner and friend. We remind it of its obligations. Those with influence over Hamas are reminded that violence is never a means to an end. Enforcement means we ensure that every lever of our diplomacy, every lever we have working with our international partners, is used on both sides to ensure, first and foremost, that the fighting stops; secondly, that we build the process to ensure sustainable peace; and, thirdly, that it is understood that there will be no future peace unless we have two nations that recognise not only their own sovereign right to exist but, equally, that the people and citizens of those two countries must enjoy equal rights, security and justice.

Viscount Stansgate: My Lords—

Lord Turnberg: My Lords, the humanitarian crisis in Gaza is intolerable, but I want to ask the Minister about the role of UNRWA in all this. UNRWA was certainly in league with Hamas in many of its recent actions, and on 7 October. Now it seems to be playing a role in preventing aid getting across. I heard today, for example, that it was preventing forklift trucks appearing at crossings to allow the transfer of goods. It was also stopping the world food agency getting food in, which Israel is trying to promote. UNRWA is playing a bad game. What does the Minister think of that?

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: UNRWA has been severely challenged over the reports and allegations made against specific members of UNRWA staff. In that regard, I am sure the noble Lord will agree with me that the UN acted quite decisively on the individuals whose names were shared by Israel with UNRWA. I do not agree with the noble Lord on some of the specifics of what these individuals were doing. From speaking with the Palestinian Authority, I understand that they had an important role in Gaza in providing support. I am not aware of the specific report about forklift trucks that the noble Lord raises. I will certainly look into that.
As I said earlier, we are fully supporting the wider UN effort. The noble Lord will know that the Secretary-General and former French Foreign Minister Colonna are conducting an investigation into the specifics of UNRWA and its future. It is important that the concerns  that we and our international partners have raised are fully mitigated before we look at any future funding and support for UNRWA.

Viscount Stansgate: My Lords—

Lord Hannay of Chiswick: My Lords, will the Minister accept some well-earned thanks for the tireless efforts that he and the Foreign Secretary have made in recent days? But I think he is saying now—perhaps he will confirm this—that, for any short-term pause or ceasefire to be sustainable, it needs to be anchored in a medium to long-term diplomatic negotiation about Israel and Palestine and their respective statehoods. Does he not think that the position he has spelled out this afternoon risks once again slipping back into a situation in which Israel, which we all recognise as a state, declines to recognise Palestine as a state, and the longer-term negotiations therefore get nowhere?
Would it not be better to think in terms of a situation in which all participants in the negotiation for a long-term solution—not just Israel and Palestine; it would certainly need to include all the Arab states around—recognise from the beginning that they are talking about two states and that the only point of the negotiations is to determine their mutual relationship in peaceful coexistence?

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: I thank the noble Lord for his kind remarks. He has also demonstrated his insights as a very distinguished former diplomat. I can assure the noble Lord that is exactly what we are doing. I mentioned the immediate, the medium and the long term. These are all pillars that we are currently working on. I assure the noble Lord that it is not just our traditional partners; we are working very much with key partners in the Gulf; we are working with those countries which have peace agreements with Israel—namely, Jordan and Egypt—but also, importantly, the Abraham accord countries, which are also playing an important role. Our approach is that every country, every nation across those pieces, from the negotiations to the delivery of the two-state solution ensuring peace and justice for both Israelis and Palestinians, whatever equity they can bring to the table, they should bring it now, so we can determine the plan and work to a single process, which involves, as the noble Lord says, all key partners, the Israelis and the Palestinians, but also all those who long for, as we do, a sustainable peace now to ensure stability and security for the whole region.

Viscount Stansgate: My Lords—

Lord Anderson of Swansea: My Lords, the concept of a two-state solution must be more than an empty slogan. I recall some years ago even Prime Minister Netanyahu appeared to accept the concept. Obviously, Israel must have security guarantees, and presumably the new Palestine state must be demilitarised with proper guarantees, but how does the noble Lord see the next steps? The two-state solution can only come about as a result of a step-by-step movement. What are the immediate steps in prospect?

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: I think I have already stated what the immediate step is. Before we can go anywhere in terms of the political horizon, we need the fighting to stop; that must be the first part of the delivery of this process, and that is exactly where we are focused—in terms of those who have influence over Hamas, but also we are working very closely with Israel to create the conditions to allow the hostages to be returned and for aid to enter Gaza on the scale that is now needed to avert a humanitarian catastrophe. That is needed now. However, we fully accept that there will need to be reconstruction, there will be a need to ensure sustainable amenities and there would also need to be security guarantees for Israel. I assure all in your Lordships’ House that is exactly the kind of conversations across the piece that we are having, not just with the Israelis and Palestinians but also, as I said to the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, with key partners in the region, who also want to see for their own citizens security and stability in the region.

Viscount Stansgate: My Lords—

Lord Clarke of Nottingham: My Lords, practically every Government from outside that is taking an interest could quite easily agree on the path that my noble friend has been describing, leading to a two-state solution and a permanent ceasefire. The difficulty is there seems to be not the slightest prospect of Hamas ever agreeing to accept the continued existence of Israel and not the slightest chance of a Netanyahu Government agreeing to a two-state solution, which they would regard as giving Hamas a victory for its 7 October activities—and they probably have the majority of the Israeli population at this present time agreeing with them at least on that. As noble Lords have indicated in earlier questions, the only way that anyone can foresee the kind of agreement that my noble friend has been describing being reached is by some sort of enforcement mechanism being applied from outside. A peacekeeping mission would need to be established to try to ensure that it does not all collapse and go back into calamity in a very short time. I realise that that is a big proposition, which could never happen unless the US Government began to take an interest in that kind of intervention. Have the British Government considered that kind of approach? Have we ever raised it with our American allies? Is there any prospect of getting together with the Arab states to contemplate such a thing? Otherwise, although we wish every success to the present activities, I cannot believe that many people listening to this are optimistic about their success.

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: My noble friend will know from his time in government that there are details that are currently under way with regard to securing what is necessary for Israel and providing it with security guarantees. That will constitute a presence beyond the Israeli Army that is currently in Gaza that has the confidence of the Palestinians within Gaza, but, importantly, has the security guarantees that Israel needs. We are working on that.
On the specifics, of course we are working hand in glove with the Americans. My noble friend will have seen the Secretary of State’s repeated engagements in  the region, and we are complementing those. This is very much a coherent effort. If I may personalise this, in my almost seven years at the Foreign Office I have never known a diplomatic effort of this nature that is so intertwined with key partners—not just traditional partners, such as those within the EU and of course the US, but our key partners in the region that are playing the important role of ensuring that the Arab presence on security will be acceptable to the Palestinians. I cannot go into more detail, but I assure my noble friend that we are very much seized of that.

Viscount Stansgate: My Lords—

Lord Palmer of Childs Hill: My Lords—

Viscount Stansgate: I must have given way about six times already.

Lord Palmer of Childs Hill: I thank the noble Viscount. The Minister and other noble Lords have spoken about getting humanitarian aid to the people of Gaza. That is the first thing that needs to be done. How will we in the UK, the US and others get that aid to the people of Gaza and not let it be taken from them by Hamas to store in its tunnels and feed to its workers? I am not reassured that that aid, when and if it comes, is actually going to get to the people of Gaza. I invite the Minister to tell us how the international community can achieve that.

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: Obviously, the situation in Gaza is fluid, but there are processes that we have to go through that include Israeli checks as the aid goes into Gaza, so there are mitigations in place. Until we get a full assessment of Gaza, it will never be possible to establish what the needs are, but we are hoping that the pause will lend itself to making the needs assessment and the security assessment that are necessary. Perhaps we will hear from the noble Viscount now.

Viscount Stansgate: I thank the Minister. I want to ask a practical question about the desperately needed humanitarian aid. Like me, other Members of this House may have seen the video footage of the air drop that was made to the hospital in northern Gaza of UK aid in co-operation with the Jordanian air force. Can the Minister assure the House that this is the type of practical activity that will continue for as long as necessary, bearing in mind that, although he said earlier that hundreds of trucks were needed every day, this type of targeted assistance, which, as I understand it, went directly to where it is needed, will continue for as long as possible?

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: I can make that assurance to the noble Viscount. To pick up on the previous point, such aid deliveries could not be achieved unless they were co-ordinated with Israel. The UK Government are seized of what we need right now. We are working on maritime and air access, and I emphasise access through operational points at the border, particularly Kerem Shalom, which is six lanes wide and was made for the very purpose of ensuring that  aid could be delivered expeditiously into Gaza. I am sure I speak for every noble Lord, irrespective of where they are on what is understandably a highly emotive situation: we are on the brink of a humanitarian crisis and we need to ensure that we use all the levers and every method possible to make sure that aid reaches those who most desperately need it.

Post Office Horizon: Compensation and Legislation
 - Statement

The following Statement was made in the House of Commons on Monday 26 February.
“With permission, Mr Speaker, I shall make a Statement to update the House on the progress that has been made to support victims of the Horizon scandal.
Since this terrible miscarriage of justice was first exposed, the Government have been working tirelessly to put matters right for postmasters. We have set up an independent inquiry and funded various redress schemes that we have continuously improved to speed up compensation for all affected. That work has been taking place for many months, and long before ITV aired the excellent programme “Mr Bates vs The Post Office”. The work included our announcement last autumn of the optional £600,000 fixed-sum award for those who have been wrongfully convicted. We continue to develop our response to the scandal, and on Thursday I made a Written Statement detailing the way that we plan to legislate to overturn Horizon-related convictions en masse. We expect to introduce that legislation as soon as possible next month.
My Statement set out that the new legislation will quash all convictions that are identified as being in scope, using clear and objective criteria on the face of the Bill. Convictions will be quashed at the point of commencement, without the need for people to apply to have their convictions overturned. The criteria will cover the prosecutors, extending to prosecutions undertaken by Post Office Ltd and the Crown Prosecution Service, as well as offence types, ensuring that those align with offences known to have been prosecuted by the Post Office. That means that only relevant offences such as theft and false accounting will be in scope. On offence dates, a set timeframe will ensure that convictions are quashed only where the offence took place during the period when the Horizon system and its pilots were in operation. The criteria will also cover the contractual or other relationship of the convicted individual to Post Office Ltd, so that only sub-postmasters, their employees, officers or family members, or direct employees of the Post Office will be within the defined class of convictions to be quashed. On the use of the Horizon system at the date of the offence, the convicted person will need to have been working, including in a voluntary capacity, in a post office that was using Horizon system software—including any relevant pilot schemes—at the time that the behaviour constituting the offence occurred.
Such legislation is unprecedented and constitutionally sensitive, but this scandal is unprecedented too. I am clear that this legislation does not set a precedent for  the future, and nor is it a reflection on the actions of the courts and the judiciary, who have dealt swiftly with the cases before them. However, we are clear that the scale and circumstances of the miscarriage of justice demand an exceptional response. We are also receiving invaluable support from the Horizon compensation advisory board in this effort. Once again, I thank the right honourable Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) and his colleagues on the board, including Lord Arbuthnot. The board met on Thursday. We were joined by Sir Gary Hickinbottom and Sir Ross Cranston, who will be the final arbiters of claims in the overturned convictions and GLO schemes respectively. At the meeting, the board strongly supported the proposals in my Written Statement for legislating to overturn convictions. They also proposed sensible measures to accelerate compensation for those impacted.
One of the biggest constraints on the speed of redress for those who choose to take the full assessment route is that it takes time for claimants and their representatives to gather evidence and develop their claims. To encourage early submission of claims, once the Post Office receives a full claim from someone with an overturned conviction, it will forthwith top up their interim redress to £450,000. Of course, if they have opted for our £600,000 fixed-sum award, they will get that instead. Similarly, on the GLO scheme, where claims are typically smaller, we have implemented fixed-sum award offers of £75,000, helping claimants to move on with their lives. Those who are not satisfied with this fixed offer can continue to submit larger claims, and they will be assessed on a case-by-case basis. We have committed to provide offers on a fully completed claim within 40 working days in 90% of cases. If initial GLO offers are not accepted and independent facilitation is then entered, we shall forthwith pay postmasters 80% of our initial offer, to help ensure that they do not face hardship while those discussions are completed.
We have always been clear that our first offers of compensation should be full and fair. It is early days, but the numbers suggest that in the GLO scheme we are achieving that. More than 70% of our offers in that scheme are accepted by postmasters without reference to the independent panel. We will also ensure that postmasters are kept regularly up to date with the progress of their claims.
The advisory board has made a number of other helpful proposals. Those are set out in the report of the meeting, which my department is publishing today. I have undertaken to give them serious consideration. I will advise the House when we reach decisions about those proposals, and I will doubtless return again with further updates as part of our unceasing determination to deliver justice for everyone caught up in this long-running and tragic scandal. I commend this Statement to the House”.

Lord McNicol of West Kilbride: My Lords, victims of the Fujitsu Horizon scandal have lacked justice for more than 20 years now. Lives and livelihoods were taken away, victims were told that it was only them and were not believed, and little progress has been seen until recently. Better late than never is little consolation, especially when, in numerous cases, the  victims are no longer with us. Nonetheless, the Government’s progression of the legislation to rightly exonerate those wrongly convicted is welcome and I commend the work that has been done to get us here. I also appreciate the regularity with which the House has been updated, and the Minister has come here to answer our questions. The legal work needed to make this legislation happen will require cross-party work and support, so I urge the Government to continue in the manner that has brought us here.
I turn to the Statement. What further details can we expect on the legislation being tabled, and when? Do the Government have a timeline for the exoneration to be fulfilled and for full compensation to be delivered to all those who deserve it?
Our legal system played a huge part in this scandal. Time and again, the courts believed the Fujitsu computer rather than the individual sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses. As my noble friend Lord Browne of Ladyton has asked on many occasions—and I am sure he will again today—when will His Majesty’s Government look at overturning the premise that it is for the individual to prove that the computer was wrong rather than the opposite?
Many postmasters and postmistresses have waited far too long for redress. As we all know, justice delayed is justice denied. Dealing with that point, will the Minister tell us whether there will be an opportunity within the legislation for the 66 postmasters who have died, and the four who have committed suicide, to have their convictions overturned and quashed? Surely it is only fair for their families to also have justice and closure.
Looking at the reach of the legislation, is there a specific reason why it does not cover Northern Ireland? As we know, the Northern Ireland Justice Minister has said that she supports the Government’s line of approach, calling it the fastest and most equitable legislative solution. Would it not make sense to apply it directly across Northern Ireland? On a similar note, would the Minister update your Lordships’ House on conversations that the Government have had with their Scottish counterparts regarding overturning convictions that took place under the Scottish jurisdiction?
I would also be keen to hear whether any prosecutions were made using data from the precursor to Horizon, Capture? Did any sub-postmasters or sub-postmistresses lose money due to Capture failings? If so, surely these should also be included in the scope of the legislation.
I turn to the legal ramifications. The Statement makes it clear that a precedent will not be set for the future regarding the relationship between the judiciary and the legislature, but that is easier said than done. In future, what is to stop this case being treated as a precedent where Parliament can pass law to overturn judicial decisions?
In the case of other similar scandals, would not the Government consider taking a similar approach, especially as some people are asking whether we consider that this example could be relevant in other historic or other worthy causes? I would be particularly keen to hear what specific safeguards the Government are putting in place to protect this stance, and what advice they have received to provide them with the appropriate assurances regarding their approach.
On a slightly separate note, the Government have now confirmed with the Post Office that no investigators involved in this horrendous scandal remain working for the Post Office. This is progress, but can the Minister provide us with an update on progress not on the Wyn Williams statutory inquiry but on the Government’s own investigations?
Finally, last Monday the Business Secretary told the other place that
“while Mr Staunton was in post, a formal investigation was launched into allegations made regarding his conduct, including serious matters such as bullying”.—[Official Report, Commons, 19/2/24; col. 474.]
Today, Mr Staunton told the Commons Business and Trade Select Committee that it was Nick Read, not him, who was the subject of the misconduct inquiry. Can the Minister confirm that that is correct and, if so, where it leaves the Secretary of State?

Lord Fox: My Lords, I thank the Minister for allowing this Statement to be debated in your Lordships’ House. We welcome its direction of travel.
Everything that could be said about the horror and unfairness of this scandal has been said, but we need to remind ourselves, as the noble Lord did, of the crushed human lives that sit beneath this issue. The move to quash these wrongful convictions at the point of the forthcoming Act’s commencement without the need for people to apply to have their convictions overturned is welcome, and the fact that it is being designed to reduce or eliminate the bureaucratic application process is promising. But clearly we need to understand it.
To qualify for this, as I understand it, there is an understandable list of criteria that have to be met, including the offence, the contract that people had, the timings, their exposure to Horizon, technology and other things. Here I have concerns. Can the Minister confirm that it will not be Post Office Ltd that will be sifting through who qualifies to have their conviction overturned? Experience has shown that it cannot be trusted; it has neither the good faith nor the processes to do this effectively and efficiently. But even if it is removed from this part of the process, it is Post Office Ltd that owns and controls most of the documentation and information that is needed to decide who qualifies for exoneration. As such, the upcoming legislation must include a duty on POL to provide documentation within a timeframe, with sanctions if they do not.
There is an overall communications issue that needs to be engaged with around those victims—what is happening to them, and how is the process going forward? If people who believe that they should be on the exoneration list are not on it, we need to know what the appeals process for them will be.
Of course, once their convictions are quashed, then we move into the compensation zone. Minister Hollinrake agreed yesterday that compensation has been delivered too slowly—I think we can all agree with that. We welcome the Minister’s comments about attempts to speed up payments, but it is clear that having three separate schemes and five different classes of victims has been a nightmare for those victims when it comes to getting through the system, and they have not been helped by Post Office Ltd—quite the opposite.
The chair of the Horizon Compensation Advisory Board, Professor Chris Hodges, speaking on the radio today made it clear that in his view POL should be completely removed from the role of processing and setting compensation payments. We agree, so can the Minister confirm that that is the Government’s intention? Of course, as the noble Lord said, this announcement covers only England and Wales, so we need to know intentions in respect of the two remaining countries. As the noble Lord asked, what is happening in Scotland and Northern Ireland? We understand the issues around devolved authorities, but what is the timing going to be and when could we see it?
There is also the issue of those who have been convicted in relation to the Capture system. Kevan Jones MP has been very clear on this, and we would like to know where that is going to go and how fast it is going to move, as with people who paid back sums to avoid the scandal that the Post Office was hanging over their heads. How will they move into the compensation zone? It is still not clear.
When will the legislation happen? The Minister talks about a July Royal Assent, which was my understanding. Given the sell-by date of this Parliament, that is running things a little fine. If possible, we need to move much faster.
As the noble Lord said, this legislation is unprecedented, and we will need time to get into the detail of what the Government are proposing. Your Lordships’ House needs time properly to assess both the effectiveness of the legislation and its constitutional implications. That is not to hold it up, but it is to do our job properly. Can the Minister tell your Lordships’ House when it will be tabled in the Commons and when we are likely to see it here? We need time for proper scrutiny, but let us get on with it. Victims are dying, victims are in financial need and victims need closure.

Lord Johnson of Lainston: I thank all noble Lords for participating in all these debates and of course my two opposite numbers for their comments in their opening statements. Without me going through a great grandstanding point, it is better if I address each individual point, because that will allow me to clarify the situation as it stands.
I share the sentiments expressed by the noble Lord, Lord McNicol, about the cross-party support: we have all come together to ensure that these people are properly compensated, and we have come up with an extremely bold and unique mechanism for exonerating those who were wrongfully convicted. I am very grateful to my colleagues, and I think I speak on behalf of my noble friend Lord Offord in this House and Minister Hollinrake, who has done an exceptional amount to progress this entire process. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to him.
The further details of what needs to be worked out following the quashing of convictions Bill that we hope to introduce as soon as possible cover a range of issues, some of which have been raised today. The details of eligibility are certainly something that we need to ensure we get right. The noble Lord, Lord Fox, raised the principle of linking the appeals process to  people who feel they should be on this list but are not included. I can say that it will be the Government who, in effect, compile the list of people who are eligible, according to the criteria. We set out the criteria very clearly in the Written Statement yesterday and they seem to me entirely logical. Clearly, you have to have been prosecuted by a certain prosecutor, such as the Post Office or the Crown Prosecution Service; you clearly have to have worked for the Post Office between certain dates; and I believe the evidence has to be linked to the Horizon scandal and to certain specific crimes, such as theft or fraud. I have looked carefully through the list, and it seems to cover key areas that we are trying to cover. However, there may be individuals who feel that they should be eligible for their convictions to be quashed but who may not necessarily fulfil the specific and very narrow criteria, so these are the sorts of details that I believe we will have to work on. We look forward to developing those as the time comes.
The principle around the devolved nations was raised and is very relevant. As noble Lords will understand, they are different legal systems, certainly in Scotland. I know that my colleague, Minister Hollinrake, met his counterparts yesterday, or over the last few days certainly, to progress what we believe will be a logical replication of this concept. I am not aware of any decision on the part of the devolved nations to change the principles that are operating, but of course it is up to them. We very much hope that they will follow our suit.
I agree that the situation of the postmasters who were convicted and have since passed away is indeed terrible, but the convictions will be quashed automatically through the Bill and by the sheer nature of the individuals’ eligibility. This is not the same as applying for compensation; postmasters will not have to apply to have their conviction quashed. The whole point about this sweeping Bill and why it requires, as both noble Lords have said, considerable scrutiny is that all convictions will be quashed en masse at the moment it becomes an Act. That is an important point; the families of anyone who is deceased will know that their conviction has been quashed and they will have that relief.
I agree that the entire tone regarding the speed of compensation has changed dramatically over the past two and a half years. I am very grateful to Minister Hollinrake for the work he has done to ensure, most importantly, that interim payments can be made before final payments. He recently increased the payments for those who have been convicted to £400,000, which gives people the immediate payment they need before they decide to take the next step. There are also substantially increased fixed offers; the record so far is quite significant: 78% of claims have now been paid and there is a clear focus on ensuring that all offers are fully completed within 40 working days in 90% of cases for the GLO scheme.
The comment was rightly made about the number of different compensation schemes. As a Minister answering questions on this, I want to get the facts right. It is clear that there are many different pools and mechanisms for making sure that people are fully compensated. There is a great historical tale as well, which further complicates things. The Government are very aware of this; we have been doing a huge amount  to make sure that people have interim payments, that there is no playing with the detail when it comes to compensating them, and that we are forward-footed in assisting postmasters in making claims. We are reviewing how the payments processing is operated, particularly in those cases operated by the Post Office. As I said in Questions, this is not a decision to be taken by me, but it is obvious that all these points remain under constant review. We want people to be compensated; the Government have allocated an enormous amount of money to ensure that they are so that there is no discussion about quantum and people can be properly compensated. As soon as the Bill goes through, I would expect a significant number of new compensation claims to be made. To claim their compensation, people will have to sign a form saying that they are eligible and have not broken the law, which is a sensible measure to take.
Finally, this is a significant and wholly unprecedented move. I am grateful to be joined by my noble and learned friend Lord Bellamy, who is a greater legal expert than me and is keen to make sure that his wise counsel is included in this process. This House will have the opportunity to debate in detail this unprecedented and unique situation. However, it is absolutely the right thing to do, given the historic tale, the sheer quantum and the clarity around the falseness of these convictions in so many cases. I hope that all noble Lords will agree and support the Government in executing this crucial move.

Lord Arbuthnot of Edrom: My Lords, I declare my interest as a member of the advisory board, which is now meeting not exactly in continuous session but every few days.
The Post Office itself is under investigation by the police. Is it not quite inappropriate for the Post Office to express any view as to the correctness of overturning convictions and is it not quite wrong, coming back to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for it to have any position or play any part in the compensation process?

Lord Johnson of Lainston: I am grateful to my noble friend and pay tribute to his work. The Post Office will not play a role in deciding the correctness of the overturned convictions in the Bill; that will be a matter for the Government. The statement about the Post Office paying compensation is well heard. I am grateful for that and I hope I have made the point that the Government continue to look into it. Having said that, the Post Office has paid a very large quantum of compensation payments—several thousand, I think. It would be extraordinary if the team there were not completely aware of the need to ensure that they get this right, I hope including significant cultural change. There has been a wholesale change of individuals on the board of directors since 2021 and 2022. Currently, the important thing is to get the compensation payments paid and, in parallel, review how the process is working.

Lord Browne of Ladyton: My Lords, because of the moral imperative, when I was Secretary of State for Defence, in 2006 I amended the Armed Forces Act  with two clauses to pardon 309 of the 346 shot at dawn for cowardice. The evidence suggested that most of them were suffering from PTSD and the records for the rest were poor. I was told that this would be a slippery slope and that I would undermine military justice by so doing, and historians told me that I was changing history. Military justice has survived and is just as robust as before, and on the “Today” programme I said to a historian that I was not remaking history but making it. Ministers are making history now, absolutely rightly, because of the moral imperative.
The Post Office’s lawyers, who were responsible for a number of these convictions, have tried to influence Ministers. I have not seen the letter, but I understand from the way in which it has been reported that they said
“it is highly likely that the vast majority of people who have not yet appealed were, in fact, guilty”
because there were
“clear confessions and/or other corroborating evidence of guilt”.
From what I have seen of the way in which these interrogations were conducted, it is no wonder that some of these people confessed. They had this evidence from the Horizon system rammed down their throats and were told what the consequences would be if they did not confess. It seems to me that these confessions are pretty poor and I cannot think of any other evidence that could corroborate the false information that this system was producing. I do not see the argument here.
The Government should look very carefully at these cases before exoneration or quashing the convictions. As I understand it, the Minister said that they will ask people whose convictions are quashed to sign a statement that may later cause them to be prosecuted for fraud. We should not leave anyone with that hanging over them. We should check all these cases and see exactly what Peters & Peters is talking about, because I cannot think of anything that was not poisoned by Horizon.
Finally, my noble friend raised this crazy presumption that computers always produce the truth. When will we do something about this in the laws of evidence in this country?

Lord Johnson of Lainston: I thank the noble Lord for those points. I was reminded of his making of history in an unprecedented and wholly unique way only a few years ago. I think he will agree that that was the right thing to do then and that this is the right thing to do now. It does not set a precedent; these are truly specific circumstances. I agree with him about the principle around the confessions. The excellent and important TV series powerfully demonstrated the relevance of this point; in a number of cases, people seem to have been given ultimatums to accept an admission of guilt for a lower level of penalty. It is right that this legislation, when it becomes an Act, will exonerate all those who fulfil these criteria.
I push back on the principle that each of the cases should be reviewed in the detail that the noble Lord suggested, because the whole point is that we want to move with a sense of pace. It has been widely reported—and, I am sure, discussed among everyone who has  been following the case—that it is certainly possible that some people who have committed a crime will be exonerated. It is the Government’s view—I call on the legal experts in this House in saying this—that the clear uncertainty on which the evidence was based would impact the retrials. I would have assumed that, if there was a retrial for each case, the baselessness of the evidence being used would mean that, even if those people were guilty of committing a crime, they would probably be exonerated in many instances. It is not simply around the technical element of the necessity; it is the fact that we want to move fast, and we want to exonerate these people who are aging—in many instances, sadly, some have already passed away. It is the right thing to do, and it sends a very clear message that this country and our two legislative Chambers want to redress a significant wrong.

Lord Bichard: My Lords, the Minister said that this is unprecedented, which of course it is in many respects. However, we are seeing a number of examples at the moment of the state finding it very difficult to deal with its failures, so I wonder whether we can be reassured that some lessons are being learned. In May of this year, we will see the publication of the infected blood inquiry’s report, which will be devastating. It would be even more devastating if the victims of those events experience the same problems that we are debating today and that we have debated around Windrush and Grenfell. Can the House be reassured that discussions are taking place in government to ensure that that does not happen?

Lord Johnson of Lainston: I am genuinely grateful to the noble Lord for that point. I agree in many instances. Governments—or the state, as he rightly said; this is not party political or individually associated —and large bureaucratic machines find it difficult to accept fault. I think that there are fears of precedent-setting and financial conversations. Indeed, for those in the wrong, quite rightly there are the principles we are debating today—with significant cost to the citizenry of this country, as well as the reputational damage and other issues we have inflicted on the individuals, both those involved and those who have suffered the consequences.
Unquestionably, there will be—and rightly so—a significant discussion about how arm’s-length bodies of this nature are managed by government departments and Ministers, and how those Ministers are then called to account by Parliament. The issue, probably over the last 30 years or so, has been a culture of creating more and more arm’s-length bodies, the virtue of which seems to be their so-called independence. At a time when there should have been higher degrees of scrutiny, the culture was the issue, not necessarily the governance processes, because the governance is there in many instances. In the case of the Post Office, the Government is the only shareholder, so they were clearly in the line of slight; of course, the Post Office was also being heavily subsidised by the Government. In many instances, the structures are there, but the culture around the so-called ability for Ministers to interfere or take a greater degree of scrutiny, interest and responsibility has been reset. I think there is a significant view that a  review of how those governance processes work in a cultural sense is absolutely right. We should be aware of the chilling power of bureaucratic indifference—we certainly are; it is something I take very seriously in my own role.

Lord Bellingham: My Lords, I speak from the experience of a former MP who represented a number of sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses. There were two in particular in my constituency who, with hindsight, we know were wrongly accused, but they simply handed their leases in and left. Their lives were turned upside down and ruined. Across the whole country, there must be many more in that position who have not appeared on the department’s radar screens. Can the Minister say what can be done to help that cohort? How can we find ways of stopping them being ignored? Can he find a way of including them in the scheme?

Lord Johnson of Lainston: I thank my noble friend. Absolutely, we can compensate only people who come forward. In the different pools, a large number of people who have been identified have not submitted claims for compensation yet. That makes some of the data look as though we have not been responding, when that is not in fact the case. We are here to respond, we are keen to respond, money has been allocated to respond, and we want to make sure that we do the right thing and redress those cases.
My ask to all Members of this House, if they have former constituents, neighbours or people of their association whom they believe should be entitled to compensation, is to ask them to come forward. There is no final date. The closing date has been removed— I think there was supposed to be a closing date in August this year. Clearly, we do not want this to go on for ever; we want people to come forward and get the compensation that is right. I press people to spread the word.

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: My Lords, notwithstanding what I said at Question Time, the Minister has been really helpful in all his replies. I wonder whether he can help me with another. When I was a lot younger, the Post Office and the railways used to run extremely well and they were run by people who had been in the industries all their lives; they knew everything about the Post Office, how it worked, the problems and so on, or about the railways or others as well.
These people were paid reasonable salaries but not hugely differently from the people who worked on the ground. What we have now is chief executives or chairmen who move from industry to industry and then to something else—if you look at Nick Read, he has been at Tesco, Vodafone, HBOS, Lloyds and Thomas Cook. They are supposed to bring the experience from one into the other but they are entirely different kinds of organisations. Then they get paid a salary of £415,000 and a bonus of £455,000. Something has gone wrong. I heard Nick Read give some evidence today and it was not very impressive. We have these people—mostly men, by the way—who move from company to company, getting bigger and bigger salaries and bonuses. Should something not be done about that?

Lord Johnson of Lainston: I am grateful to the noble Lord for allowing me to carry on in my position, at least until the end of this Statement. I am glad he has such halcyon memories of the railways when he was a younger man; I am not quite sure when that was.
We need to be aware of something which has struck me in the discussions around this. There is naturally a sense of reflection over the salaries paid to senior executives in an organisation such as the Post Office which is going through such a traumatic time, and the view that we want to punish the current executive leadership. While that is a very natural instinct, we want the best people possible running the Post Office today. It is an intensely complex situation, not just in terms of compensation and the issues around the Horizon scandal but running 11,000-odd Post Offices around the country and all the issues around that. What is important is that we get value for money; if the Post Office was making a great profit, everyone was happy, all the staff were delighted and we were not in this situation, we would be extremely pleased, probably, to pay the chief executive more than he is currently paid.
It is not necessarily about the quantum; the point is the governance around how salaries and bonuses are fixed. There was a question earlier in this House about long-term incentive plans compared with short-term ones. In the financial services sector, where I come from, you are paid your bonuses over three, five and often more years, which is considered to be quite onerous but I think it has resulted in changes in behaviour. It is absolutely right that we should look at these sorts of plans for these highly paid executives in these public corporations.

Lord Lansley: My Lords, I draw the House’s attention to my registered interest as UK chair of the UK-Japan 21st Century Group. Can my noble friend update the House on the prospects of securing a significant contribution to the financial redress from Fujitsu? Of course, Fujitsu is a Japanese company but in this context this is consequential upon its acquisition of ICL during the 1990s.

Lord Johnson of Lainston: I thank my noble friend for raising that point. I think it has been widely publicised that Fujitsu has apologised for its role in this —as one would expect and hope—but has also accepted a moral responsibility. It has also suggested that it will look to see how it will participate in this process and my colleague Mr Hollinrake has been very clear that this overall envelope of compensation to postmasters is not to be borne solely by the Government. Clearly, there is an ongoing inquiry. This is an extremely complicated process to comment on at this stage but the tone of what my noble friend is suggesting chimes completely with the Government’s view.

Lord Fox: To build on the question from the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, in his reply the Minister talked about the remuneration of the executive team, but actually the sharp end of the Post Office is the people working behind the counters—who we all see when we are getting service from the Post Office. This can be nothing but a demoralising series of news for  those people. Their morale within that business is really important, as they work for a company that has been so vilified publicly and hauled through the mud. Does the Minister think that the executive team, the evidence of which we saw today, is the team that can rebuild the morale and the spirit within the Post Office, which will be needed to deliver the sort of turnaround that the Minister was talking about?

Lord Johnson of Lainston: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for those comments. I should say that the Government have full confidence in the CEO and in the board whom we have appointed over the last two to three years. I am told they are extremely grateful for the services of the government representative and the UKGI representative. There are two postmasters, who I think are elected to the board, so it is a diverse board that represents the interests of the Post Office. Its members are not tarnished, as it were, by previous activities, and they have been doing a good job in responding to what can be described only as a crisis.
I echo the noble Lord’s points. The Post Office personnel are the absolute core of the business, of many communities and of this country, and it is agonising to see them put through so much distress. I agree with the comment made, I think by a colleague of mine, that in some respects the sheer greatness of our Post Office staff around the country has been magnified by this event, and I am sure that more of us will use our local services when we get the opportunity. This has also drawn a lot of attention to the needs of the postal service around the country, the conditions that its employees work in and the opportunity to improve them, with more recruitment and more people entering the Post Office service. I totally support the noble Lord’s aim; it is a magnificent organisation in its principal core ambitions of delivering great service to communities. The people who work there should be celebrated, and we certainly do that.

Lord Arbuthnot of Edrom: May I come back on a point that was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Browne, about the declaration that is to be signed by those whose convictions are overturned? I am not sure that I understand this declaration. If you have signed accounts which you know to be wrong and yet you have had your conviction for false accounting overturned by the Court of Appeal on the basis that it is an affront to justice, do you sign something saying you have not committed false accounting when maybe you have? I do not understand this declaration.

Lord Johnson of Lainston: I thank my noble friend for raising that point. The signing of the form saying that you are innocent is not to do with the conviction being quashed but is in order to receive compensation. The Government do not think that it is unreasonable, and I hope noble Lords would not think it is unreasonable, that there is an element of a threshold for people to say that they were not guilty of a crime and that they deserve their compensation. The nature of the application alone should probably cover that. It is a very sensible move to make, and I do not think it distorts the process. However, clearly, these are live conversations and we will have them in more detail.

Lord McNicol of West Kilbride: Just to be clear on that as we go into the last few seconds, with regard to the quashing of the convictions, is it the case that the individual postmasters or postmistresses who received judicial sanction will not need to do anything for their convictions to be quashed, as the signing is purely to do with compensation?

Lord Johnson of Lainston: Absolutely. In conclusion, the Bill will immediately exonerate everyone whose conviction is being quashed. It is not a requirement to apply to have your conviction quashed; the Government will draw up their list. Detail has been raised about how people could appeal if they feel they should be on the list and are not, and there are clearly some details that need to be worked out about how that process will work. It will happen the moment the Bill becomes an Act of Parliament. It is absolutely the right thing to do, it is our intention that it will happen before the end of the Summer Recess, and I very much look forward to all sides of the House supporting us in that move.

Animal Welfare (Primate Licences) (England) Regulations 2023
 - Motion to Approve

Lord Douglas-Miller: Moved by Lord Douglas-Miller
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 14 December 2023 be approved.

Lord Douglas-Miller: My Lords, the UK has the highest welfare score in the G7, according to the world animal protection index, and some of the highest animal welfare standards in the world. This Government are determined to maintain our position as a world leader in animal welfare. These regulations will make an important contribution to the ambitious animal welfare reforms that have taken place since this Government came to power.
It is estimated that up to 5,000 primates may be being kept as pets in England. When we called for evidence in 2019, we were appalled by what we found. Some primates were being kept in bird cages; others were being fed junk food. These animals suffer and can be left malnourished, aggressive and malformed. The Government are introducing these regulations to provide the additional protection necessary for primates that are not kept in zoos but in domestic or other private settings, by requiring primate keepers to have a specialist licence to keep them. They will, in effect, ban people from keeping primates as household pets by ensuring that they are not kept in environments, such as people’s homes, that fail to provide for their needs. Primates have specific welfare needs, and this SI means that people will no longer be able to keep primates as household pets—that is, in their homes—in the same way that they might keep a pet dog or cat. Instead, private primate keepers will need to satisfy enforcement authorities that they can meet the zoo-like standards we have licensed for.
The Government consulted on the proposed prohibitions on keeping primates, and the introduction of a licensing scheme in England, in 2020 and 2023. Over 98% of responses to the Government’s consultation exercise in 2020 and over 97% of responses to the subsequent consultation in 2023 expressed overwhelming support for a bespoke licensing system for the private keeping of primates.
This SI is brought forward under Section 13 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006. The licensing scheme it introduces will set stringent rules to ensure that only private keepers who can provide high welfare standards akin to those provided by licensed zoos will be able to keep primates. The SI outlines how applications for primate licences are to be made, how local authorities are to determine whether to grant a licence application, and how licences are to be renewed, varied or surrendered. It provides local authorities with powers to issue rectification notices and to revoke or vary primate licences.
Individuals who currently keep or intend to keep primates in England will be required to have a primate licence from 6 April 2026. Primate licences will be issued by local authorities only to individuals who can meet the welfare standards set out in the regulations. Anyone keeping a primate in England without a required licence will be committing an offence under Section 13(6) of the Animal Welfare Act and will be liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term of up to six months, an unlimited fine or both.
Keepers will need to apply for a private primate licence from the local authority. Licences will be valid for a maximum of three years and will be granted only after a satisfactory inspection conducted by the relevant authority. Licence holders must undergo re-assessment to renew their permission to keep these animals. Inspections will assess record-keeping, provision of emergency arrangements, care and maintenance, environment, physical health, nutrition and feeding, behaviour, handling and restraint, transport, and breeding. Guidance will be provided setting out the detailed welfare standards to be met.
The Government have noted concerns about the welfare of primates whose keepers fail to meet licensing conditions but are not persuaded that a grandfather clause enabling existing owners to keep primates without complying with these conditions is best for the animals, as such a provision would sanction the keeping of primates in poor conditions.
This SI has a transitional period and owners will have approximately two years to meet the licensing requirements, reach compliance or make alternative arrangements for their primates. Before then, my officials will engage with local authority and rescue interests to work through the practical impacts of the SI and determine how they might be supported to meet potential future demand for their services.
I am more than happy to take any questions from noble Lords.

Amendment to the Motion

Baroness Hayman of Ullock: Moved by Baroness Hayman of Ullock
At end insert “but regrets that the draft Animal Welfare (Primate Licences) (England) Regulations 2023 seek to implement through secondary legislation proposals that were previously contained in primary  legislation; notes that they do not ban keeping primates as pets, and that they lack a grandfather clause; and calls upon His Majesty’s Government to put in place policies that appropriately support the rehoming of surrendered primates.”

Baroness Hayman of Ullock: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introduction to this statutory instrument. We on these Benches have been consistently campaigning for a ban on the trading and keeping of primates as pets. The Minister outlined a number of reasons why this needs to happen. The RSPCA found that primates kept in domestic settings were often isolated, could be kept in cramped and inappropriate housing such as parrot cages, and were weaned much earlier than would be natural, causing behavioural problems later in life for infants separated from their mothers.
The Monkey Sanctuary in Cornwall has reported that every pet primate it has rescued came to the sanctuary with behavioural problems such as rocking, pacing, obsessive grooming and biting themselves. Many primates also present with metabolic bone disease and tooth problems linked to vitamin deficiencies caused by poor diet, lack of sunlight and being weaned too early.
At the end of last year, we were pleased to see that, following consultation, the Government announced that:
“Keeping primates as pets will be banned under new legislation … improving the welfare of thousands of animals”.
In response to that consultation, 98.7%—4,500 people—expressed support for a ban on the keeping, breeding, acquiring, gifting, selling or otherwise transferring of primates, apart from to persons licensed to keep primates to zoo-level standards. So it is a bit disappointing that the regulations do not ban the keeping of primates as pets, but instead introduce a licensing system for primate keepers. To draw proper attention to this fact, I have tabled my amendment to the Motion, as it is important that the Government are clear and honest about what the legislation actually does.
I shall lay out our concerns relating to these draft regulations, including a number of issues that could be dealt with via accompanying guidance to the regulations. But first, I thank the RSCPA, the Born Free Foundation and other animal welfare organisations for sending us helpful briefings.
Before I look at the SI in detail, can the Minister confirm in respect of the proposed licensing system that anyone with an animal welfare-related conviction will be excluded? It is important to have that clearly outlined.
There are clear concerns that the Government have backtracked on proposals to include grandfather rights in the regulations, which would enable those who currently own primates to keep them under the previous standards. What will happen in two years’ time to the thousands of primates currently being kept by private individuals who will not meet the licensing requirements, given that there are no provisions for these animals in the regulations?
As the Minister explained, and as the Explanatory Note on page 18 of the draft regulations makes clear, as of 6 April 2026, keepers of pet primates who do not have a licence
“will be committing an offence”.
There are very few specialist primate sanctuaries, and most are at capacity. This will create huge challenges for local authorities, animal welfare organisations and rescue centres, and could result in pressure to grant licences for primates held in insufficient or inappropriate conditions because there is simply nowhere for them to be rehomed, or in many primates being kept illegally and covertly, which could result in further health and welfare issues. I am aware the Minister talked about how his officials would be working with local authorities and zoos, for example, but it is really important that, when that work takes place, this is resolved before we reach the cut-off date in April 2026. We could also see that more primates are released or abandoned. The risks are not clearly identified in any impact assessment associated with the regulations. Perhaps I have missed it and this is something that the Minister could clarify.
Defra, in its December 2020 consultation document, proposed that
“given the absence of other alternatives, these primates may continue to stay where they are for the rest of their lives or until they can be rehomed, subject to an annual vet visit”.
Almost all respondents to the 2020 call for evidence who supported a ban stated that a grandfather policy would be needed; it is not clear why this provision has been removed. What is the reasoning behind this?
What will the Government do to ensure there is a framework for local authority enforcement officers, animal welfare organisations and primate sanctuaries to manage the implementation of the regulations? Will the Government commit to urgently putting plans in place to address this issue, including providing financial assistance to genuine sanctuaries and working with zoos to ensure the welfare of the thousands of primates that will need to be rehomed if the Government are to achieve their stated intention of restricting primate-keeping to those who meet “zoo-level standards”?
I turn to some of the specifics of the SI in front of us. As currently drafted, inspections could be carried out by people who do not have the required specialist knowledge and expertise in the welfare of primates or their requirements. There is no stipulation in the regulations of the need for veterinarians to have appropriate specialist qualifications or experience. In Part 1, Regulation 2, “General Interpretation”, an appropriate expert is defined as
“a veterinarian; or … any other person who … is suitably qualified”
to provide that advice or guidance. Surely the Minister agrees that it is important that the guidance accompanying the regulations clearly specifies what constitutes a suitable qualification for vets or other individuals.
Animal welfare organisations have suggested that the following could be included in accompanying guidance. First, that a specialist vet must have a recognised professional qualification and experience relating to primates—I am aware that that may be challenging. I am not sure how many would actually have that qualification, but it needs to be looked at. Secondly, that a primate welfare specialist must have recognised qualifications and demonstrable experience in primate welfare, keeping and behaviour. Thirdly, any primate welfare specialist must have undergone specific training  in how to conduct an inspection under the new standards. The final suggestion is that a registry of such experts should be retained by Defra, in order that they can be called upon to assist with any inspection when needed. Will the department consider those suggestions?
Could the Government clarify the definition in paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 of
“any other individual who is suitably qualified to provide that advice or guidance”?
What is “any other individual”? We need to be clear on this when we are looking at animal welfare.
I turn to paragraphs 25 to 37 of Schedule 1. Guidance is needed to determine, for example, the “appropriate natural behaviours”, “appropriate social groups” and suitable “spatial dimensions” that achieve the zoo-level standards promised by the Government. It is really important that we have clear definitions and guidelines for enforcement officers within the guidance when it comes out.
Paragraphs 45 to 48 specify conditions for breeding. The RSPCA and others have made it clear that they are opposed to this, as they believe that the breeding of primates, even under high welfare conditions, would encourage their private keeping—which the SI is designed to prevent. Has Defra discussed these concerns with the RSPCA or other animal welfare organisations? If not, why not? If it was aware of these concerns, why has the department chosen to include breeding within the regulations?
Paragraphs 24, 39 and 42 allow pets to be removed from their enclosures, handled and transported so that they can be exhibited. The current inspection processes for the regulations do not include inspection of the conditions in which animals are kept and exhibited at events. These derogations seem to fly in the face of the Government’s previously stated intentions. Can the Minister explain why exhibiting has been included?
Finally, in Part 1, Regulations 4 and 5 seem to contradict each other as to whether the regulations extend to England and Wales or to England only. Perhaps the Minister can clear up this confusion.
We want to see a ban on the private keeping of primates. We will not oppose this SI, because we believe that, if it is properly enforced and sufficiently high standards are met, it should see a stop to the majority of private primate keeping. We hope that the regulations, when introduced, will be robustly enforced, that a clear road map will be laid out on how to ensure protection for those primates already kept as pets, and that there will be strong guidance to ensure that their implementation is smooth and they do what they are intended to do. I beg to move.

Baroness Fookes: My Lords, I declare my past and present connections with the RSPCA.
I welcome this SI, but I am sad that it does not go further. I should have liked to have seen a straight ban on the keeping of primates by private owners. If not, there then has to be a whole series of regulations, rules and guidance to try to ensure that standards are sufficiently high. You could cut all that out if you just said a straight no. That is not what we are faced with this afternoon, though I am grateful for small mercies.
I have been and remain very worried about the impact of unnatural conditions on the keeping of primates, which will continue for a couple of years. It is impossible for the bulk of private owners to provide the kind of natural setting which is suitable for these animals.
Even more importantly, they are social animals. They live naturally in groups. In many cases, owners have only one. To me, that is positively cruel. It is the equivalent of solitary confinement for a human being. We all know the impacts of solitary confinement on the psychology and health of people; I believe that it is equally bad for primates. That is a very real concern which I hope can be overcome by the regulations. But will they insist that people have groups of animals? I suspect not, so one of the difficulties will remain.
I do not want to go into detail on the points that the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, has already made. I have considerable sympathy with her criticisms. I too am extremely puzzled as to why the breeding of primates is allowed. For me, if flies in the face of what this SI supposedly wants to do. I hope that the Minister will be able to explain why he thinks this is a good idea. Furthermore, I would have thought it will ensure that animals continue to be kept ad infinitum. It is a great puzzle to me.
I am equally puzzled by the point that exhibitions will be allowed. What exhibitions? That sounds more like a circus to me. What possible reason can there be to have animals in exhibitions? It is absolutely absurd. I am sorry to be so firm with my noble friend, but I do not like it and I do not approve.
Then there is the problem of enforcement. Rules and regulations are fine, providing they are adhered to strictly. Here we have an added problem. The instrument sets out all sorts of excellent arrangements as to the amount of space allowed and all these other details, but we do not have the guidance before us to indicate how this would be worked out in practice. It is a continual complaint of mine that, when people bring forth the principles of things, we do not get the details, which are absolutely essential. I worry about this considerably.
We then, of course, have the particular worry of the implementation—the interim period, if you like, when I think after 6 April 2026 people will either need to have a licence or be asked to give up their animals. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, already indicated that this could cause a real problem in practical terms. I too press my noble friend the Minister on exactly how the Government propose to deal with this. Will they, for example, set up special sanctuaries? I do not think there will be enough to do the trick, as at present. I should be happy to hear from my noble friend if I am wrong on that, but I suspect there will be a very real problem with implementation.
For that reason, I too would have preferred what is called a grandfather clause, whereby existing owners could keep the animals for the rest of their natural life. Those conditions may not be ideal, but we have to balance that against the possibility of what will happen in practice if they are all flooded on to the market at once, if I may put it that way, and whether their conditions would be any better. If my noble friend can assure me that that will not be so, then I will worry less about the absence of a grandfather clause.
I both welcome this and am disappointed by some aspects of it, particularly considering the absolutely remarkable ability, with modern technology, to see animals in their natural habitat through films and through sound. Why on earth would anyone wish to keep them in artificial conditions, which will be at best adequate and at worst appalling? I really would wish to go further, but as I say, I accept the SI for want of anything better.

Lord Trees: My Lords, I declare my interests as laid out in the register, particularly my role as co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Animal Welfare. I apologise that I may well repeat many of the excellent points already made by the noble Baronesses, Lady Hayman and Lady Fookes, but they bear repetition. I hope the Minister will take them into account, answer them and perhaps address some of them in guidance.
I broadly welcome these regulations, which were a major feature of the kept animals Bill, which was, of course, withdrawn. As has been explained, they concern the keeping of primates by private individuals, but they do not ban such keeping; rather, they license it. As has been stated, primates have very complex welfare and social needs, which are likely to be very difficult to meet in a domestic environment. There has previously been non-statutory guidance, but this legislation strengthens the necessary safeguards for the welfare of kept primates.
In common with others, I regret that this legislation does not completely prohibit the private keeping of primates, but I presume that its ultimate objective is to phase out such a practice. Should that be the case, I have two specific reservations, which have already been referred to. The first concerns allowing the possibility of breeding, which seems totally contrary to an objective of phasing out the private keeping of primates as pets. There is an argument that breeding should not be allowed except in very rare circumstances where there may be a strong case for conservation.
Secondly, the regulations allow the potential for exhibiting primates, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, has drawn attention. This is likely to require special conditions for transporting and keeping them, in distant locations, different from their normal housing. It may be very difficult to provide suitable transport and accommodation, and this would seem totally unnecessary since we have licensed zoos for the purpose of exhibiting animals, including primates.
With regard to zoos, I notice that the licensing conditions described in the regulations do not meet the Government’s commitment that all private keepers should keep primates at zoo-level standards. Thus, it is important that the accompanying guidance, which will set out these rules in great detail, should be made available for comment as soon as possible. The regulations suggest that that will be in the spring. Well, spring is nearly sprung. I look forward to seeing that guidance and hope that it will take into account some of the points made in this debate.
I have a number of other concerns. One is around timings and dates. While a licence is required before April 2026, and microchipping is a requirement for  getting a licence, in paragraph 5 of Schedule 1 there is reference to a deadline for microchipping a year later, in April 2027. It may be my misunderstanding, but could the Minister clarify what appears to be an anomalous situation?
A major concern about the regulations before us, reflected in the regret amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, is that there is no grandfather clause. This is in contrast to suggestions that were made in the original government consultations in 2020 and 2023, which would have enabled current keepers to keep their primates until the end of the animals’ natural lives, under certain conditions, beyond the licensing date. Instead, the regulations provide a transitional period of two years for owners to comply.
According to government estimates, there may be as many as 5,000 primates in private homes in the UK. We have already heard that there are very limited facilities to house primates in this country, so a serious welfare problem may arise when the regulations come into force with a “hard stop” in April 2026.
I also note that the territorial extent does not include Scotland. Has there been any discussion with the Scottish Government about their introducing similar legislation to prevent the possible “dumping” of unwanted primates on to owners in Scotland, to avoid the enhanced welfare requirements that will come into force in England? There are some comparisons and parallels here with the current XL Bully problem that has arisen due to England and Scotland having different regulations.
Licensing and inspection are the remit of local authorities and are to be carried out by “suitably qualified persons”. This term is not defined in detail in the regulations but, in the debate in the other place on 31 January this year, Minister Spencer described what inspectors will be required to assess. Let us bear in mind that this requirement relates to primates, a very special group of highly evolved mammals. The inspectors will have to assess:
“provision of emergency arrangements, care and maintenance, nutrition and feeding, physical health, environmental behaviour, handling and restraint, and transport and breeding, as well as the conditions in which the animals are kept”.—[Official Report, Commons, Sixth Delegated Legislation Committee, 31/1/24; col. 4.]
I submit that these assessments require considerably more training, experience and expertise than can be expected of normal trading standards officers, given the huge breadth of their responsibilities already. If His Majesty’s Government are to insist on suitably qualified persons other than vets, then these regulations highlight the urgent need, as APGAW recommended in a report on animal welfare enforcement in 2022, for a cadre of inspectors specially trained in animal welfare in local authorities. That would be an important complement to the laudable body of animal welfare legislation that His Majesty's Government have introduced in the last few years. It would ensure proper assessment and enforcement of this and other animal welfare legislation. Notwithstanding that, given the complex welfare and social needs of primates, I urge that the inspection of premises and facilities, and the monitoring of the care of primates, be conducted by veterinarians.
Elsewhere, it has been suggested that only specialist vets should be used—I note the comment from the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman. That would be ideal, but it may not be proportionate or practical. I note that there are only four Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons specialists in mammalian wildlife medicine, but perhaps a list of available specialist expertise could be made available through Defra for local authorities and veterinarians in practice to consult.
Thus, while I welcome these regulations as an improvement on current welfare regulations with regard to the private keeping of primates, they stop short of what many would argue is an appropriate, reasonable and scientifically justifiable prohibition on the keeping of primates as pets. I support the regret amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman.

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb: My Lords, I can see that this SI is well motivated—both from an animal welfare point of view and for the Government to deliver on a promise. The problem is that it does not deliver on that promise, just as the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, said—I enjoyed her speech and agree with her.
When we look more closely at this SI, we see that it is deeply weird. For example, I think a lot of people in England would not even know whether it was legal to own monkeys or other primates any more. We had an excellent briefing from nine animal welfare bodies, including the Conservative Animal Welfare Foundation, which gave us quite a lot of pointers to the gaps in the SI that need to be filled if we are going to take animal welfare seriously.
The Government say that they are fulfilling their manifesto promise, but all they have done is rebrand pet primates as zoo animals and the owners as “specialist private primate keepers”. These pet primates must be kept at zoo-level standards. I would imagine that most pet owners would be horrified at the concept of keeping their dogs and cats at zoo-level standards, but when we look at what zoo-level standards are, it begs the question of why all animals should not be kept in such conditions. The rules require a suitable diet, access to fresh water, hygienic standards, registration with a vet, monitoring for illness, being kept in suitable premises and structures, play space, appropriate levels of temperature, and animals to be kept in appropriate social groups—actually, that is going to be quite hard for most of our new specialist private primate keepers.
I can see only two things in the legislation that separate these zoo animals from well looked-after pets. The first is that you are not allowed to play with or handle them and, secondly, there is a lot of additional bureaucracy, which will be quite difficult to fulfil. Therefore, the Government have not actually banned keeping primates as pets; they have banned people from playing with their primates or pet monkeys and required them to pretend that they are zookeepers instead. That does not fulfil the manifesto promise, which is hugely disappointing. However, for want of anything better—although I will vote for the regret amendment, which, quite honestly, is the least that we can do—I can see that the measure is going to pass this House.

Baroness McIntosh of Pickering: My Lords, I want to take this opportunity to put a couple of questions to the Minister, as she was kind enough to invite us to do. I declare my interest that I am an associate of the British Veterinary Association. It did not issue a briefing, but I have looked at its website and it supports the original thrust of the consultation, which was for a ban. As recently as December last year, when it posted its position on its website, it was in favour of a ban. Why have the Government and the department moved away from a ban to licensing, as in the regulations today?
Is the Minister in a position to say exactly how many primates are kept as pets? The noble Lord, Lord Trees, referred to a figure of 5,000, but I do not know whether that is an authoritative figure or a guesstimate.
The thrust of the regulations looks very much at licensing becoming the responsibility of local authorities. I entirely endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Trees, said about the difficulty of identifying which professional would be best placed to make sure that the conditions in which the primate was to be kept were appropriate. The Minister will be as aware as I am of the severe constraints under which local authorities are operating at this time, so I wondered what the thinking was behind putting in place a licensing scheme rather than a ban—and it would be helpful to know the total number of primates that we are talking about.
Lastly, when I chaired the EFRA Committee in the other place, we took a lot of evidence on the import of illegal dogs, dog smuggling and boiler-room breeding of dogs. I wondered why we have before us a very worthy statutory instrument on animal welfare and keeping primates as pets, but we do not seem to have tackled those other issues, which are a source of great concern and anxiety to the British public, of illegal dog smuggling and boiler-room breeding, often in inappropriate sheds, in people’s homes.

Lord Hope of Craighead: My Lords, I want to follow the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Trees, about the possibility of exportation to Scotland when the licensing scheme is set up, as it will be, in England. It is quite a serious issue, as we have seen with XL bully dogs. I wonder whether the Minister’s department has been in touch with the authorities in Scotland to draw their attention to what is going on so that they are fully aware and can make their own assessment of the risk.
Some primates are kept as pets in Scotland, and I happen to have met two of them on separate occasions when they were being taken for walks. It is not as if it is an entirely English practice; there are certainly some instances north of the border, although I do not know how many there are. It is important that the two jurisdictions work together on this system without the disparity that is apparently coming because the regulations apply only to England.

Lord de Clifford: I declare my interest as working in the veterinary field, and obviously I am keen on animal welfare.
I too welcome the statutory instrument. It is a step forward for the improvement of primate welfare. If enforced, the new licence standards will discourage  possible new owners from keeping these animals. A total ban on keeping primates as pets would be a far preferable outcome, but that is not what we are being offered today.
In my view, there are limitations on this, and I support the regret amendment. The time limit of two years is excessive. For an animal to be kept under those unacceptable conditions for that length of time is not particularly good, especially if an inspection has been done and someone has been given two years to implement that, as under Part 3, Regulation 15(2)(a) and (c).
In paragraph 21(a) of Schedule 1, there is no definition of the appropriate frequency for a routine veterinary inspection. A minimum of at least once a year should be included in that regulation, just to ensure good public health.
There is a regulation on nutrition and feeding, requiring a review of these routines, with inspections and changes, on a 12-monthly basis. I believe that these should be inspected by a veterinary surgeon as well.
The impact of this licensing will put pressure on the veterinary profession, which is currently short-staffed, with workforce issues. With many new regulations, do we have the resources to implement these welcome new high-welfare standards for all primates?
When this statutory instrument comes into force, there will be no grandfather rights, so there is going to be excessive pressure on rescue centres. There is no guidance in the regulations as to how the current owners of these primates, or people who have been denied licences, should deal with them. I welcome these changes to the Animal Welfare Act 2006, but they do not go far enough. I support the regret amendment.

Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introduction and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, for her very thorough introduction to this regret amendment. I am grateful to her for the chance to debate the issue in more detail. I refer to my interests as set out in the register.
The Government carried out consultations in 2020, when there were 4,516 responses, with 98% of respondents expressing support. Further consultations were carried out from 20 June to 18 July 2023, when there were 643 responses, mainly from those involved in looking after primates, animal welfare charities, individuals who were known to already keep primates as pets and members of the public. On this occasion, 97% of respondents were in favour. The regulations will come into force on 6 April 2026. Given the high level of support from the consultations for these measures, why are the Government not implementing them sooner than April 2026? Is this due to the guidance not being published until the spring of 2024, to which local authorities, as the EM says,
“will be required to have due regard”?
I would like some clarification from the Minister, please. The noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, has referred to the lack of guidance.
The regulations are due to be administered by local authorities, which will inspect and grant licences, either by a veterinarian or by another suitably qualified and  competent person. Nearly all Members have referred to this. Given that the Government do not really know just how many primates are being kept by private keepers, I am slightly alarmed at the impact on local authorities.
Paragraph 12.1 of the EM says that there will be
“no … impact on business, charities or voluntary bodies”.
However, it also says:
“There are between 1000 and 5000 primates being held as pets … and the majority of these are held by private keepers”.
For the benefit of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, that information is in the Explanatory Memorandum. There is a world of difference between 1,000 and 5,000. This is a huge number of very sensitive animals potentially being held in inappropriate circumstances, with the Government not having even an approximation of how many there are, let alone a precise number. Does the Minister believe that there are sufficient veterinary and other professionals capable of dealing with the numbers and complexities of the licensing regimes being proposed? The noble Lord, Lord Trees, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, have referred to this.
Primates currently comprise 502 extant species, which are grouped into 81 genera. These range from gorillas, orang-utangs, chimpanzees and baboons down to aye-ayes, loris and lemurs. Each is very different, requiring different treatment, diets and housing. The actual instrument gives extremely detailed restrictions and conditions on how primates are to be kept. This makes it obvious that the keeping of a primate by a private individual is difficult, if not impossible—quite rightly so.
Most primates are very social animals and need the company of others of their species. If not allowed to roam free in the countries of their origin, they should be kept in licensed zoos, whether private or open to the public. Only in these circumstances can we be sure that the stringent provisions of this SI will be enacted and that primates will be able to enjoy a life as close as possible to that which they would have enjoyed in the wild. The noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, has made reference to this.
The RSPCA is concerned that insufficient thought is being given to what will happen to the animals belonging to those primate keepers who do not receive a licence to continue to keep their pet. As has already been said, there are not innumerable spaces in animal welfare organisations or primate sanctuaries to manage the resulting flow of primates following the implementation of the SI. How are the Government going to ensure the welfare of these primates, which they have indicated should be kept in zoo-level standards?
I turn now to the issue of fees. Regulation 13 states that a local authority may
“(a) charge a fee in respect of any application relating to a primate licence under this Part; (b) charge a fee in respect of any inspection which it must or may arrange under this Part”.
This gives the impression that local authorities are free to set their own fees. That is good, but we could end up with dozens of different sets of fees up and down the country. There is also likely to be a different set of fees depending on the size and number of primates involved. While I welcome that local government itself will determine what the fee will be to cover its costs, some  sort of yardstick would be useful. It is unlikely that local authorities will have veterinarians on their payroll, so they will have to buy in the services of the relevant qualified person both to inspect to grant the licence in the first place and to carry out routine inspections in the future to ensure that the terms of the licence are being adhered to. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, referred to this. No one in this Chamber is under any illusion about the state of local government finance. With populations increasing and social care under pressure, to be asking local authorities to take on yet more duties without providing the finance to cover them is unacceptable.
The instrument also has a section on rectification notices, and allows two years for steps to be taken to comply with licence conditions. This is far too long for a primate to be kept in conditions that do not comply with the licence granted. The noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, has referred to this. This might relate to poor diet or lack of space or stimulation, or it might relate to public safety. Does the Minister agree that the time for compliance for the rectification notice should be much shorter than two years?
I fear that I do not agree with others about a grandfather clause and allowing animals to stay with their keepers until the end of their life. This is a long time to be living in great misery.
Finally—others have referred to this point—paragraph 39 of Schedule 1, dealing with restraint, states:
“No primate may be handled or restrained except … insofar as … it is necessary for the purposes of an exhibition activity.”
Paragraph 42 says:
“No primate may be transported unless … it is necessary for the purposes of an exhibition activity”.
This gives the impression that a primate may be transported for the purposes of performing in front of others, and the public. Can the Minister say what is meant by
“for the purposes of an exhibition”
because, as written, it is extremely worrying? The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, raised this, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes.
I remain concerned that, unless these measures are implemented quickly, some primates will live in unsuitable conditions, without the company of their fellows, and be miserable as a result. Although it is not perfect, I support the general thrust of this SI.

Lord Douglas-Miller: I thank all noble Lords for their valuable contributions to the debate. I have listened carefully to the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, in support of her amendment, and to other contributions in today’s debate, and I have been struck by our shared commitment to act to improve the welfare of privately kept primates. It is important that we do act.
We introduced this SI in response to a call for evidence and consultation exercises that confirmed the extensive mistreatment of privately kept primates. Some of this evidence was, frankly, horrible and highlighted primates being kept in poor conditions, in small enclosures or birdcages, and suffering from fractures or misshapen bones. It is absolutely right that the Government take action to address primate welfare in non-zoo settings.
It has been encouraging to note that the strong response to the consultation exercises has been to welcome the Government’s decision to put a licensing scheme in place for the keeping of primates to address their specialised needs. It has also been encouraging today to note support from across the House for our objective of improving primate welfare. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving me the opportunity to state clearly the Government’s view. I recognise her and other noble Lords’ concerns and will seek to address them now.
The amendment suggests that the SI does not ban the keeping of primates as pets. I have explained in my opening remarks that that is essentially incorrect. The vast majority of animals kept as pets in this country do not need to comply with the kinds of licensing conditions contained in this SI. This is not semantics. Primates have particular welfare needs that cannot be met by keeping them as household pets, and this SI seeks to end that practice. Those currently keeping primates in birdcages and in other wholly inappropriate conditions will no longer be able to do so. Only those people keeping or wishing to keep primates who can demonstrate compliance with the licensing conditions and welfare standards to the satisfaction of enforcement authorities will be able to keep primates privately. These conditions are stringent and are the kinds of measures that would not apply to household pets.
The noble Baroness’s amendment also regrets the absence of a grandfather clause, as was raised by a number of other noble Lords, and advocates government policies to support rehoming. Given the evidence that we have about mistreatment of primates, the Government do not believe that continuing to allow private primate keepers to retain primates in poor conditions is the best thing for these animals. Future rehoming and surrender arrangements are very important concerns, of course, but the Government do not believe that the answer is to allow suffering animals to be kept as they are. Instead, this SI provides a two-year period before the requirements come into force to provide keepers time to comply with the requirements. Until we license, we will not know the scale of primate keeping, but I can assure the House that we will continue to work closely with rescue and rehoming charities to monitor the impact of the SI on rehoming activity, and to respond accordingly to evidence.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, asked whether we might consider keeping a register of primate specialists. I shall certainly take that suggestion back to the department. I can confirm that this legislation applies only to England. If you have a criminal conviction for animal welfare issues, you will not be eligible for a primate licence.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, and others asked about the licensing conditions that must be met. The primate licence will be issued only to those who can meet the welfare standards set out in the regulation. Those standards are akin to the standards that licensed zoos must meet and include requirements such as microchipping, local authority inspections and record-keeping. They also include minimum welfare requirements, such as emergency arrangements and requirements regarding care and maintenance, nutrition and feeding, physical health, environment, behaviour, handling and restraint, transport, and breeding.
A number of noble Lords raised the issue around breeding and asked why the Government are not cracking down on private keepers breeding primates. This legislation will ensure that only those who can keep primates to appropriate welfare standards are able to do so. When a keeper chooses to breed primates, the keeper will need to meet the welfare standards set out in Schedule 1 to the SI on breeding. Through the standards, breeding activities will be controlled and subject to veterinary oversight.
The noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, the noble Lord, Lord Trees, and one or two other noble Lords raised the issue of allowing licensed keepers to take primates out on exhibitions. A keeper of a primate may take primates out for exhibition only if the keeper has a licence under the Animal Welfare (Licensing of Activities Involving Animals) (England) Regulations 2018 permitting this activity. Such a licence will require the keeper to adhere to the welfare standards set out in the regulations in relation to exhibition activities.
The noble Lord, Lord Trees, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, raised the question of the devolved Administrations, Scotland in particular. I can confirm that the department works very closely with the devolved Administrations but, as noble Lords probably know, this is a devolved matter. The comparison was drawn with XL Bullies, and it was a good comparison. In that example, we did quite a lot of consultation with the devolved Administrations, and Scotland chose a different route from ours. We tried to advance the argument of exactly what might happen, and that argument was refuted—but it all came to pass, as I think noble Lords are aware.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Hayman and Lady Fookes, and the noble Lord, Lord Trees, talked about primates being social creatures. This SI says that primates must be kept in social groups, and this will be detailed in the guidance that will be available shortly.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Bakewell and Lady McIntosh, and one or two others, asked how the regulations will be enforced. As with most existing animal welfare legislation, local authorities will be responsible for implementing and enforcing the new legislation. We will also be issuing guidance to local authorities on the exercise of their function under this legislation. This will cover issues such as interpreting licence standards, appointing inspectors, conducting inspections, and so on.
With that, I hope that I have answered your Lordships’ questions and that all noble Lords share my conviction regarding the need for this instrument. As is clear from the debate, animals matter to all in this House, as they do to the British people. This instrument is a step forward and a promise kept by a Government with animal welfare close to their heart.

Lord Trees: Is the Minister confident that suitably qualified persons can appropriately inspect and monitor the enforcement of these regulations for primates?

Lord Douglas-Miller: The noble Lord asks a very good question. One reason for the two-year lead-in is to give us time to assess the qualifications that are needed and put the appropriate training in place to ensure that we can fulfil that obligation.

Baroness Hayman of Ullock: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his careful and considered response to the many questions and issues raised during the debate. Particular concerns were expressed about breeding and exhibiting. I listened to the noble Lord’s explanation, but I still do not understand why people would need to breed or exhibit. The key thing that came through from the debate, for me, was that noble Lords support a complete ban rather than the licensing that has come through. The consultation responses supported a total ban, the Government appeared to support a complete ban, and as I say, all noble Lords who spoke in this debate supported a total ban, so I still do not understand why that is not what the Government brought forward, as it was what we were all expecting. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment to the Motion withdrawn.
Motion agreed.

Northern Ireland
 - Motion for an Humble Address

Lord Caine: Moved by Lord Caine
That an Humble Address be presented to His Majesty welcoming the return of the devolved institutions in Northern Ireland, re-affirming the importance of upholding the Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement 1998 in all its strands, acknowledging the foundational importance of the Acts of Union 1800, including the economic provisions under Article 6 of those Acts, and recognising that, consistent with section 23(1) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, executive power in Northern Ireland shall continue to be vested in His Majesty, and that joint authority is not provided for in the Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement 1998 in respect of the UK and Irish Governments.

Lord Caine: My Lords, before I start, I put on record my personal tribute to the late Lord Cormack, who died suddenly over the weekend. Many noble Lords will know that Patrick was a very distinguished chairman of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee in the other place and took a huge and highly informed interest in Northern Ireland affairs. He was hugely supportive of me, both as a new Member in this place in 2016 and subsequently as a Minister, even when we disagreed on certain issues. His contributions to our debates on Northern Ireland will be sorely missed.
The humble Address welcomes the return of the devolved institutions in Northern Ireland; re-affirms the importance of upholding the Belfast/Good Friday agreement 1998 in all its strands; acknowledges the foundational importance of the Acts of Union 1800, including the economic provisions under Article 6 of those Acts; recognises that, consistent with Section 23(1) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998,
“executive power in Northern Ireland shall continue to be vested in”
His Majesty; and that joint authority is not provided for in the Belfast agreement in respect of the UK and Irish Governments.
We have now seen the return of the devolved institutions in Northern Ireland, following the publication last month of the Command Paper Safeguarding the Union. I know I speak for most noble Lords in welcoming these extremely positive developments, after Northern Ireland had been without a devolved Government for two years. Indeed, Northern Ireland has been without a devolved Government for some five of the past seven years. We have already seen what can be done when the political parties are back in government, working together to deliver for those who elect them. Aided by the £3.3 billion of funding provided by the UK Government, the Executive have already decided to allocate over £685 million to allow conversations to commence between employers and trade unions in relation to public sector pay.
The Government’s significant, fair and generous spending settlement will also allow the Northern Ireland Executive to stabilise public services, better manage public finances, increase opportunities for improved infrastructure and investment and pave the way for the transformation of public services. We now look forward to working with the new First Minister and Deputy First Minister and all their ministerial colleagues in the Executive to deliver these shared objectives, and eagerly await a sustainability plan for Northern Ireland’s finances, including proposals for revenue raising, following the discussions that took place between my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the political parties on these issues at Hillsborough Castle prior to Christmas.
I move this humble Address today to welcome the return of devolution and honour the Government’s commitment in the Command Paper to provide a mechanism for Parliament to affirm its support for the Acts of Union, and outline that there is no basis in the Belfast agreement for joint authority arrangements with the Government of Ireland. The UK Government’s commitment to the Belfast agreement in its totality is unwavering. As I have said many times in your Lordships’ House, the agreement is the bedrock of all the progress that has been made in Northern Ireland during the past 26 years. Part of the genius of the agreement, for me, is that it accommodates different aspirations while allowing people to work together for the good of the whole community—something I hope we will now see on a sustainable, long-term basis.
The restoration of the strand 1 institutions is therefore welcome news, and I am hopeful that we will soon see the North/South Ministerial Council and other strand 2 implementation bodies return to full operation, alongside the meetings of the British-Irish Council and British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference that are already scheduled to take place in the coming months. It is this three-stranded approach—this delicate, careful, interdependent balance —that will honour the spirit and letter of the agreement, providing a fitting tribute to those who, some 26 years ago, helped deliver the agreement that is, as I have just said, the foundation of so much peace and stability in Northern Ireland. I pay tribute, as always, to the noble Lord, Lord Murphy of Torfaen, for his contribution and role in delivering that agreement in 1998.
To be clear, this Government will always uphold the long-established three-stranded approach to Northern Ireland affairs, meaning that internal arrangements for the governance of Northern Ireland, including any potential reforms to the institutions, are for the Northern  Ireland parties and the UK Government to decide. This humble Address also rightly acknowledges the foundational importance of the Acts of Union 1800, including the economic provisions under Article 6 of those Acts. The Government are clear that the new arrangements committed to in the Command Paper, including the UK internal market system, ensure the smooth flow of trade across the UK. Our determination to ensure that that happens was demonstrated when we enshrined the unfettered access of qualifying Northern Ireland goods to the whole UK internal market.
The final part of this humble Address relates to the constitutional status of Northern Ireland. The Belfast agreement and the Northern Ireland Act 1998 are explicit that any change to the constitutional status of Northern Ireland would require the consent of a majority of its people. The UK Government are absolutely clear that there is no basis to suggest that, at present, a majority of people in Northern Ireland wish to separate from the United Kingdom. Our position is therefore straight- forward: Northern Ireland has a bright and prosperous future within the union for as long as the people of Northern Ireland wish it. As a Conservative and Unionist Government, that is something we warmly welcome.
What we cannot countenance and will not consider is what some have described as “joint authority”—a vague and frankly ill-defined concept that would see the UK and Irish Governments somehow exercise joint sovereignty over a part of the United Kingdom. That will not happen, either de facto or de jure. The agreement sets out two constitutional futures: Northern Ireland as fully part of the United Kingdom or wholly part of a sovereign, independent united Ireland. There is no third way. The UK Government are absolutely clear that the consent principle of the Belfast agreement governs the constitutional position of Northern Ireland. We will not countenance any arrangements that are inconsistent with that. It follows, therefore, that Northern Ireland is not some kind of hybrid state. It is, under the consent principle, clearly and unequivocally an integral part of the United Kingdom.
My central motivation is to make Northern Ireland work and flourish, and to do so for everyone, regardless of their community background or ultimate political aspirations. That requires fully functioning devolved power-sharing institutions, with locally elected politicians taking decisions over local matters, accountable to a local Assembly. I once again welcome the decision of the leader of the Democratic Unionist Party, Sir Jeffrey Donaldson, to return his party to Stormont, backed by the legislation that has now been passed in both Houses of Parliament. As local representatives work again in the interests of the people who elected them, we remain committed to building a brighter, stronger and more prosperous future for Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom, and that is what this humble Address affirms and delivers. I beg to move.

Amendment to the Motion

Baroness Hoey: Moved by Baroness Hoey
At end insert, “; but regrets that, in a manner inconsistent with Strand One (5)(d) of the Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement and section 42 of the Northern  Ireland Act 1998, cross-community consent remains disapplied for the Article 18 procedure, as it relates to Articles 5 to 10 of the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland, and further regrets that the continuing effect of the Protocol is to over-ride and suspend the provisions of Article 6 of the Acts of Union 1800.”

Baroness Hoey: My Lords, I move this amendment to insert what I see as some honesty into the humble Address and to make clear what the legal and political reality is, because it is quite different from the words in the Government’s humble Address.
I accept that this humble Address, solemn as it is, has no legal status; we are neither changing nor making legislation. It does not alter one word of the protocol or its effect on the Belfast agreement. However, if we are sending this from your Lordships’ House to His Majesty King Charles, it is important that we get it right and make it honest. I am trying not to be too legalistic, but I want to refer to legal judgments and specific provisions because it is important to have on record for the future some material that confounds many of the claims made by the Government and, sadly, by the DUP leadership. This may well be the last time we have an opportunity to put all the arguments on the record.
Almost exactly a year ago, Sir Jeffrey Donaldson said in the other place that the Supreme Court had issued a judgment, and that the protocol has subjugated Article 6 of the Act of Union. He continued that it also changes a key part of the Good Friday agreement,
“which is the need for cross-community consent on matters of import to the people of Northern Ireland … These are the things that need to be addressed in UK law to restore our place within the United Kingdom”.—[Official Report, Commons, 8/2/23; col. 892.]
This humble Address pledges fidelity to the Belfast agreement and to the foundational importance of the Acts of Union. The two issues that Sir Jeffrey said had to be addressed—his words, not mine or anyone else’s—were the disapplying of cross-community consent in a manner inconsistent with the Belfast agreement and undoing the subjugation of the Acts of Union. That is what he said was necessary to restore Northern Ireland’s place in the union. Yet cross-community consent remains disapplied and Article 6 of the Acts of Union remains suspended. Noble Lords are asked to support a humble Address which does not say that. Instead, we are urged to play along and say that the Belfast agreement has not been changed and the Acts of Union are not still vandalised.
I listened last night to the debate in the other place. Sadly, I again heard the leader of the DUP attacking the very people he stood with over years of campaigning and protest—the people he now says talk nonsense, who do not know facts or history and have not read the Acts of Union. This latest attack on other pro-union people who, incidentally, he refuses to debate with in public, is based on a claim that such persons urged restoring the Acts of Union. It seems that now, perhaps after spending some time with the Northern Ireland Office—too much time—anyone who thinks that are fools. Whoever would suggest such a ridiculous thing as restoring the Acts of Union, our foundational constitutional statute?
The problem for Sir Jeffrey is that on 21 July 2021, he said in Parliament:
“what does the Prime Minister intend to do to fully restore the Act of Union for Northern Ireland and remove the Irish sea border?”—[Official Report, Commons, 21/7/21; col. 971.]
As I said earlier, he stood before on platforms all over Northern Ireland with myself, Jim Allister, Ben Habib, Jamie Bryson and many others campaigning in pursuit of that objective. Furthermore, he actually wrote a foreword to Jamie Bryson’s book on the Acts of Union, commending it to fellow unionists.
Being blunt, the only person who seems to have U-turned on all this is the leader of the DUP. His outburst on the Acts of Union is, I believe, about covering his U-turn. He is making efforts to create a puff of smoke around the Acts of Union to conceal the reality that, far from undoing the constitutional damage to that foundational legislation, he now accepts and implements it and thinks that, by talking nonsense about tariffs in 1801, everyone will be confused.
In October 2022, the DUP leader also said:
“Some lay great emphasis on cutting the number of checks on goods”
moving from GB to Northern Ireland. He continued:
“If that were to happen they say all our problems would be sorted … The truth of course is that the checks on the Irish Sea border are the symptom of the underlying problem, namely that NI is subject to a different set of laws imposed on us”.
That is very different from the Sir Jeffrey Donaldson in 2024. I hope that he will reflect on his comments. There is nothing wrong with changing one’s opinion; there is nothing wrong with people changing their views. I respect people who do that if they say it with intellectual honesty rather than lashing out at those who have not changed and have remained true to their principles. He clearly wanted to get the Assembly back, and that is fair enough, but you do that by being honest and straightforward with people, not trying to do a deal with the Government to produce words that are meaningless.
Of all the deceptions in the humble Address, those concerning the Acts of Union and the Belfast agreement are probably the most insulting. It pledges support for the Belfast agreement “in all its parts”, meanwhile omitting that the core cross-community consent safeguard found at Strand One 5(d) of the Belfast agreement and given effect in Section 42 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 remains disapplied for the Article 18 protocol vote later this year. What is really meant by the words about upholding the Belfast agreement in all its parts is the Belfast agreement as constitutionally vandalised by the protocol and framework.
The previous government claim was that the cross-community consent mechanism applied only to devolved issues. That was the Government’s defence, but it is wrong on many levels, and I want to put why on record. Most fundamentally, if the cross-community consent mechanism was never applicable and we are all so misguided, why did the Government pass regulations to disapply that which never applied anyway?
Another part of what seems to many people to be duplicity is that the cross-community mechanism applies to a matter to be voted on by the Assembly. There is  no limitation as to only matters which are devolved or within legislative competence. That is obvious from paragraph 107 of the Supreme Court judgment in the challenge to the protocol that I and others were involved with. The Belfast agreement is not upheld at all; it has been made subject to the protocol—in this instance Article 18—and gives way to it.
We have come full circle. We were told that the protocol was about protecting the Belfast agreement in all its parts, but now we are celebrating an altered Belfast agreement, with safeguards disapplied to the detriment of unionists in order to protect the protocol. It is shameful, and what was so disappointing to me was that neither the deputy leader nor the leader of the DUP in the other place highlighted this most obvious deficiency. That is of profound concern.
I turn to the next bold claim in the humble Address, which is
“the foundational importance of the Acts of Union”.
I believe that the Command Paper, and the way the DUP leadership presented its endorsement of it, is an exercise in deception on the Acts of Union. No other word describes it. It said a lot, much of it inaccurate, about the Acts of Union but then tried to convince everyone that black is white. It said that we must believe that the Supreme Court did not say what it said, close our eyes and pretend that the Acts of Union are not subjugated and in suspension. We must delude ourselves that we are all confused and there is no conflict between the protocol framework and the Acts of Union, and that if there is then we should embrace it because if we do not—most bizarrely of all—tariffs might be brought back on Bushmills whiskey.
I do not like the word “subjugation”, but it is not my word. It was first used not by unionists or loyalists but by this Government in their written and oral submissions to the Court of Appeal, in which they said that the Acts of Union were subjugated. This argument was accepted and repeated in the judgment of the Court of Appeal and upheld by the Supreme Court. People sometimes get annoyed when I refer to subjugation of the Acts of Union, but I am using the Government’s words, or at least their words prior to their U-turn. We are now supposed to believe that the interpretation that the courts and all of unionism applied to Article VI of the Acts of Union was wrong and instead embrace the new inventive interpretation which amounts to nothing more than meekly accepting the fundamental change to our constitutional status, while pretending otherwise.
Sir Jeffrey Donaldson now puts his case—in a way much different from what he said on platforms prior to partnering with the Northern Ireland Office to sell his deal—on the basis that we cannot restore the Acts of Union because that would mean putting them back to 1801 and, as I said, there would therefore be tariffs on, for example, Bushmills whiskey. This sounds good symbolically and gets a good headline, but in substance it means that, because the Acts of Union have changed before since 1801, there is no issue. If you make this case, you must be willing to embrace the changes to the Acts of Union made by the protocol. Why else would previous changes add anything to your argument? When Sir Jeffrey talks about 1801, he is deflecting  from the central point. The constitutional damage we have all campaigned on was inflicted by the protocol, and that is the cause of the suspension of Article VI. The fundamental issue is whether that has been undone.
Let me put it simply, as this question must be responded to. Quoting the court, Sir Jeffrey talked about the subjugation of Article VI of the Acts of Union, which he said must be addressed to restore Northern Ireland’s place in the union. That has not been addressed. As it obviously has not, how can anyone claim, using his test as a measuring stick, that his deal restores Northern Ireland’s place in the union? That has not been answered by Sir Jeffrey or the Minister. Amid all this spin, there is a very simple question: as a matter of legal reality, the Acts of Union remain subjugated and in suspension—in the court’s words, not mine—so are the Government now willing to accept that as a legitimate change to the Acts of Union?
What we mean by restoring the Acts of Union is very simple. It means undoing the damage inflicted by the protocol. This has been turned around into a bizarre argument about tariffs on whiskey which is designed to confuse everyone. The reality is that, in 1801, there were no more tariffs or duties to be added to a specified agreed list unless they were equalised. These are known as countervailing duties. In simple terms, Schedule 1 to Article VI of the Acts of Union exhaustively specified certain items that would continue to be subject to tariffs and duties. This was an agreement between what was then Ireland and Great Britain; it was not imposed or agreed with a foreign power.
More fundamentally, it was designed to be transitional. As such, under the Statute Law Revision (Ireland) Act 1879, Schedule 1 was repealed. There have been no tariffs since. Contrary to the attempts to confuse and mislead people, doing exactly what Sir Jeffrey called for—repairing the damage done to Article VI by the protocol—would not, as if by magic, cause to spring back to life Schedule 1 and its list of tariffs abolished in 1879. It is silly and beneath such an experienced and eminent political leader, as well as others, to say such utter nonsense designed to create confusion because he will say nothing on the substance of the point around the Acts of Union.
The Acts of Union, prior to the protocol, remained in force. In the words of Lord Justice McCloskey, the intent of Article VI from 1801 was “unmistakable”. Yet now, listening to some senior members of the DUP and Ministers in the Northern Ireland Office, we are all supposed to believe that everyone has just fallen into one big misinterpretation, including our courts. The notion that, if the subjugation of the Acts of Union were lifted and the damage of the protocol undone, somehow Schedule 1, which was repealed in 1879, would come back to life and there would be tariffs on Bushmills whiskey—which would really upset the honourable Member for North Antrim—is complete and utter nonsense.
I will also address the claim in the Command Paper that the Supreme Court did not address the inconsistency between the Acts of Union and the protocol, as Ministers have said time and again. Yes, it did. It expressly proceeded on the basis that there was an inconsistency, as upheld by the High Court and Court of Appeal  before it, the highest courts in Northern Ireland. This is set out clearly in paragraphs 54 and 64 of the Supreme Court judgment. It confounds emphatically the claims of the Government. The most remarkable thing is that the Government accepted there was such an inconsistency and did not cross-appeal to the Supreme Court. Now they are trying to tell us something different. The inconsistency was held by the courts to be: first, the continued application of EU law; secondly, the ongoing fetters on trade; and, thirdly, Northern Ireland having privileged access to the EU single market, the price of which was our exclusion from being a full part of the United Kingdom internal market.
The noble Lord, Lord Bew, who is in his place, has said repeatedly in this House that the Acts of Union have been changed before. That is quite true, but the basis of his argument, as with Sir Jeffrey’s new position, must be that, because they were changed before, the present change should not offend unionists. Sometimes he seems to be urging us to embrace it. If he wants to deploy that argument, he should be honest about what it means: accepting the constitutional damage to the Acts of Union inflicted by the protocol. It means accepting that change on the basis that the Acts of Union have changed before. That is what some, including the noble Lord, have said. We should be honest about that.
It has also been said that EU law was never one of the DUP’s seven tests. Members of the DUP answered that pretty strongly in our last debate. An MLA called David Brooks set out last week in the Belfast News Letter that it was never a DUP test. That is really odd, because the leader of the DUP said in October 2022 that the core issue was EU law, and he said it again in February 2023 in an interview with Tracey Magee of UTV. The very first of the DUP’s tests was directed to the Acts of Union. You cannot restore the Acts of Union without removing EU law, because EU law is the most fundamental breach of them. It is very simple. A mention of restoring the Acts of Union cannot be anything other than a commitment to end EU law; otherwise, achieving such restoration would be impossible.
Practically everything I have said has been lifted more or less directly from the court judgment, which I hope many noble Lords will read, because it is clear that they are inconsistent with the Acts of Union.
If there are those who are willing to forsake the fundamental principles of the Acts of Union—as determined not by me but by the courts—in favour of the arrangements giving effect to the protocol, they need to be clear about what that means. What is happening here is something quite different, aided and abetted by the Northern Ireland Office: to evade the political costs for accepting the recasting of Article 6 of the Acts of Union by pretending—yes, pretending—that it is not happening at all.
This is important, and I have gone on about it —although I have not gone on as long as Sir Jeffrey did yesterday—because I want to get it on the parliamentary record that I and others here have not engaged in this con trick, for that is what it is. That is why I have said what I have said today and why I tabled the amendment to draw out this debate. In the weeks and months ahead, we will see all the glitter fall away. Unionist people and people in this House and elsewhere in  Parliament will see what has been tricked, pulled and put out to deceive people. No matter how hard those who have participated in this and have gone along with it may wish it not to be so, there will be a political cost to pay, because they have been warned.
All this, as well as being in the courts, was also agreed to by the independent lawyer, the former Attorney-General John Larkin, in his published legal advice. There has not been one single piece of legal advice produced, by the Government or the DUP leadership, to support the increasingly bold claims that they have made—I wonder why not.
I will conclude. The Acts of Union remain suspended. The cross-community consent mechanism central to the Belfast agreement remains disapplied. The Irish Sea border remains. The green lane, for which you are required to provide information for customs purposes to obtain authorisation to trade a little more freely in your own country, remains. The red lane, which operates on the basis of an at-risk category over which the EU has a veto, and which catches a significant amount of material and goods that go nowhere near the EU, remains. EU law continues; it is law that we did not make and cannot change. The protocol, in all its core aspects, remains in full force and continues to reign supreme. The only thing that has changed over the last year are the views of the DUP leadership, who now seem to accept all those facts and have returned to Stormont to implement them. If we are going to address His Majesty the King, we should tell him the truth. I beg to move.

Lord Dodds of Duncairn: My Lords, I begin by joining the Minister in paying tribute to the late Lord Cormack. I had the pleasure of serving with Patrick Cormack in the other place for many years. Indeed, from 2005 to 2010, he was chairman of the Northern Ireland Affairs Select Committee; in that capacity, he contributed much to Northern Ireland debates. I sat on the same Bench as him, across the aisle, and we shared many conversations. He had a deep and abiding interest in Northern Ireland and its people, and we will miss his contributions on Northern Ireland. I did not always agree with him, as I am sure that other Members did not, but he always put his case eloquently, passionately and sincerely. We send our condolences to his family at this very sad time.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, for moving the amendment standing in her name. Certainly, if she pushes it to a vote, I will be voting with her in the Lobby, since it is merely factual and adds the reality of the situation to the humble Address. I share the view that it is important that this Parliament sets out the full facts, as we now have them, with the Windsor Framework/protocol in place. I think that this is the seventh humble Address to be moved in this Parliament, apart from humble Addresses after a Queen’s or King’ Speech, and I had the pleasure of moving one of them in this House in March 2023. My humble Address would have had the effect of annulling the building of the border control posts and of doing something practical to remove the Irish Sea border. I regret that this humble Address does not do that.
I want to begin by celebrating the union of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Today, that union is strong and endures. Those who want to abolish Northern Ireland are failing—and that is how the campaign, sometimes styled for Irish unification, should be characterised. It is about the abolition of Northern Ireland and the removal of part of the United Kingdom; it is a negative campaign. The people who advocate it wish to eliminate and tear away the citizenship of the majority of the residents of Northern Ireland, part of the United Kingdom.
On the other hand, the case for the union is positive and enduring, and that is even more so today in a changing, uncertain and dangerous world. We are part of the sixth-biggest economy in the world, part of a kingdom still with vast influence, through both hard and soft power, and part of a country that stands four-square behind the cause of freedom and democracy across the world, as we have seen in Ukraine and other places, and has the ability to do things about it. This country still matters in the affairs of the world, so we want to remain part of that United Kingdom. This is not just about trade matters or the economy; it is a matter of our birthright, citizenship and identity.
It is because we value the union so much that I come to today’s debate with such a sense of concern. The humble Address before your Lordships’ House is part of the reassurance package, if we can call it that, promised by the Government to unionists in the deal—Command Paper 1021, where it is set out that this would be the mechanism used to provide reassurance. But the reality is that Command Paper 1021 retains the Windsor Framework/protocol with all its inherent anti-unionist contents. This is where words collide with reality, and where propaganda collides with the facts.
There is nothing in this humble Address that changes anything in relation to Northern Ireland or that undoes the damage done to our constitutional position as part of the United Kingdom by the protocol. We saw the same last week when we debated the statutory instruments—the legislation promised in the deal. Not one of the six or seven provisions in the regulations debated last week alters the superstructure of the Windsor Framework/protocol. It of course affects the smoother operation of the Irish Sea border and the application of EU jurisdiction over a large part of our economy in Northern Ireland, but it does not go any further than that.
It is ironic that it is claimed that joint authority is not provided for in the Belfast agreement, according to the contents of the humble Address, and yet the Government have abdicated their own authority and responsibilities and granted full authority to the EU to make laws over significant parts of the economy of Northern Ireland, part of the United Kingdom. It is ironic in the extreme to acknowledge
“the foundational importance of the Acts of Union”,
while doing absolutely nothing to repair the modification or suspension—or, as we have heard, “subjugation”; that is the word used by the court—of those Acts of Union as set out in the judgments of the Court of Appeal and, subsequently, the Supreme Court. It is astounding that we are supposedly reaffirming the  importance of upholding the Belfast agreement in all its strands, while at the same time undermining the cross-community consent requirements on which the Assembly and the institutions were set up—I have referred to that consistently: the Article 18 vote which comes at the end of this year on the applicability of the protocol; I will come on to that in more detail shortly.
Looking at the main elements of the proposed Address, it states first that
“joint authority is not provided for in the Belfast … Agreement”. 
Of course, that is nothing new; that has always been the case. I welcome the fact that the Government stress the importance of maintaining the three-stranded approach to the affairs of Northern Ireland, because very often in recent years they have not respected it. One remembers a former office-bearer in the Northern Ireland Office, the Secretary of State as he then was in 2020, who was very keen to involve Simon Coveney, the then Irish Foreign Minister, on virtually every announcement that was made, including those internal to Northern Ireland. However, given that, in March last year, the Government had the audacity to argue that the Windsor Framework removed any sense of an Irish Sea border and actually protected our constitutional position, it is clear that the words in front of us must be subject to great scrutiny. The Government have in reality accepted a form of joint authority. How have they done that? By actively legislating for the EU to have the power to make law in some 300 areas in Northern Ireland.
I have here that legislation—sometimes we just talk about these things, but every page in my hand contains law after law from the European Union that applies directly to Northern Ireland. There are hundreds upon hundreds of EU laws, and not one of them is subject to any democratic input from anyone elected in Northern Ireland. Legislators in the Irish Republic have had, and enjoy, greater power than anyone in Northern Ireland in respect of those laws. So when we talk about joint authority, let us recognise the reality of the situation that faces Northern Ireland today. In this area covered by the protocol, colonial status is exactly what we have as far as those laws are applicable. We will hear arguments about the Stormont brake and how the pipeline of EU law has been stymied. However, I challenge the Minister or anyone else in this House to show me anywhere in law where the Stormont brake applies to any single one of those laws in Annex 2 of the protocol, because it does not. That is a matter of fact and a matter of law.
Then we come on to the part of the Address about
“acknowledging the foundational importance of the Acts of Union … including the economic provisions under Article 6 of those Acts”.
There has been a lot of distraction, misrepresentation and revision of history in relation to arguments around the Acts of Union, particularly by the Government and others. We should revert to the only opinion that matters, stripping away all the technicalities and arguments. The only opinion that matters is that of the Supreme Court, not of some commentor or lawyer, however distinguished, or politician or government spokesman. This is a Supreme Court case, let it be remembered, that was brought by the leaders of unionism in Northern Ireland, including the then leader of the DUP. That  fact, and the fact that the Supreme Court saw fit to hand down a judgment in the case, demonstrates that this is not academic or esoteric but a real and significant issue.
The Supreme Court said at paragraph 65 of its judgment that
“article VI is modified to the extent and for the period during which the Protocol applies”.
In paragraph 67 it talks about Article VI being subjugated. Again, these are not our words, but the words used by the Supreme Court. We need to contrast those words with the words in the humble Address, which do not bear comparison to the reality of what was outlined by the Supreme Court. If the Government were serious, they would seek to undo the constitutional damage. But there is nothing in the legislation last week, or here today in the humble Address, which does that.
Then we come to
“the importance of upholding the Belfast … Agreement … in all its strands”.
As we have heard already, the Belfast agreement—as amended by the St Andrews agreement and amended after sufficient consensus of support from both the unionist and nationalist sides—has, of course, been upended by the protocol/Windsor Framework. The most pertinent example is the one outlined in the amendment before us: the continuing application vote in the Assembly later this year, which is to be carried out by a simple majority vote. That is the only major vote in the Northern Ireland Assembly subject to a majority vote; every other major decision taken by the Northern Ireland Assembly is either a cross-community vote or susceptible to being turned into one through a petition of concern.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, outlined, this was voted on in a debate in December 2020, in Committee, which both she and I attended. That Committee was attended by two of the most prominent architects of the Belfast agreement, the noble Lord, Lord Empey, and the late Lord Trimble, who both railed against it as a severe breach of the Belfast agreement which they had negotiated. Yet the Government proceeded in a clear and flagrant breach of the principles which are supposed to underpin power-sharing in Northern Ireland. Many who supposedly champion the Belfast agreement are content, it seems, to turn a blind eye to—or worse, actively connive in—the disapplication of cross-community safeguards when it suits them. This cannot stand. This is not right.
The removal of cross-community voting is not only fundamentally wrong in this case but creates a very dangerous precedent for unionists. For almost 100 years, we have been told that majority rule was unacceptable in Northern Ireland, and for the last 50 years it has been beyond the pale as far as government structures in Northern Ireland are concerned. But if it is acceptable to permit a reversion to majority rule on something as fundamental as the protocol, with all its economic and constitutional implications, then it is very hard to argue that the same majority voting rule should not apply to other areas of operation within the remit of the Northern Ireland Assembly. That is the danger here. We have already heard the siren calls and we will hear more. I am afraid the argument against it has  been gravely weakened by those unionists who accept the provisions in relation to the Article 18 vote later this year.
What is going on at present is a full-blown effort by the Government to paint a one-sided picture of real events as far as the Windsor Framework is concerned. There is an all-out PR operation to put the most favourable gloss on the operation of its provisions. It is seen, for example, in the refusal to answer Parliamentary Questions in a proper way. The Government appear embarrassed to set out unpalatable truths, so they are economical with the reality and hope people will not notice.
Of course, we remember a time when Ministers in this place and in the other place came to the Dispatch Box to advocate and argue for a radically different approach, which would have removed foreign laws. They enthusiastically backed that approach. Now, they equally enthusiastically back a position which surrenders sovereignty over parts of the Northern Ireland economy and way of life, and creates customs borders within the United Kingdom, where Northern Ireland is subject to the EU customs code and in the EU single market for goods and agri-food products. A necessary consequence is that there is an Irish Sea border, so that goods are not in free circulation between Great Britain and Northern Ireland still. As a result of Article 8 of the protocol, we are under EU VAT rules and, under Article 10, subject to EU state aid rules for the entire economy.
Yesterday in the other place, when the Minister was challenged in relation to VAT, he said that it was time to move on. Ministers do not want the details to be exposed but they need to be continually raised, highlighted and challenged. Unless they are called out consistently as being unacceptable, it will all become more and more embedded. If we settle for and champion the current position then there is little hope of getting the change we need in the future.
We demand equal citizenship in Northern Ireland. We do not demand it in some arrogant way. We demand it as our right as subjects of His Majesty the King, and we demand that those rights should be restored as quickly as possible. We have been uniquely disfranchised and we need to ensure that those wrongs are put right as soon as possible.

Lord Lilley: My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Dodds. I endorse his celebration of the union from this side of the Irish Sea; it is as important to us that Northern Ireland be part of the United Kingdom as it is to people in Northern Ireland to share that common membership of the union with the other component parts.
I also echo the noble Lord’s tribute to Lord Cormack. Unlikely though it may seem, I owe a great debt to Lord Cormack, who chaired my leadership campaign when I stood for the leadership of the Conservative Party in 1997. Although we differed on some issues, as is often the case we shared far more in common than meets the eye. He was a great parliamentarian, a great unionist, a great Conservative and a great Christian, and may he rest in peace.
I welcome the terms of this humble Address, and I hope that the reductions in border checks are as substantial as is claimed in the government document Safeguarding the Union. If they are, I congratulate the DUP on having secured those improvements. However, it raises a few questions. We were told that the Windsor Framework would make trading between Birmingham and Belfast just like trading between Edmonton and Edinburgh. Paragraph 108 of Safeguarding the Union says that 4 million more movements will now be covered by UK food safety laws, not EU laws, resulting in the
“scrapping of costly veterinary certificates and checks”.
Therefore, either the Windsor settlement was oversold or these new arrangements are being oversold. If the former, the DUP’s decision to withdraw from Stormont achieved more than the UK Government were able to achieve at the time of the Windsor settlement. Clearly, these changes are of benefit to the whole of Northern Ireland—to all communities in Northern Ireland. I would have thought they would have been welcomed by all parties, admittedly somewhat shamefacedly as far as the other parties are concerned, because they neither sought nor even believed it possible or desirable to achieve modifications of the protocol, which they wanted enforced, it would seem, in all its rigour.
In a week when we have seen the other House bow to threats of violence, we should pay tribute to the DUP and the unionists in that they secured these improvements by constitutional means. That is all the more so because the whole reason we are in this position —the whole reason why the Government agreed to try to have a border in the Irish Sea rather than in the natural place, between Northern Ireland and southern Ireland—was republican threats to blow up or shoot anyone who enforced checks at that border. Shamefully, the Irish Government waved around pictures of a blown- up customs post, dating from decades ago, to try to persuade their European colleagues to insist that there be no border within Northern Ireland and that we had to have one in the Irish Sea. In fact, the EU’s insistence that it would need border checks to maintain the security of the single market was entirely bogus.
For entirely other reasons, I was reading the European Commission White Paper, Completing the Internal Market, which it published in 1985, ahead of the measures to create the single market. At that time, member states had different SPS rules—different veterinary rules, and so on—and they used to enforce them at the border with border checks between Germany, France and other countries within the European Union. Naturally, the European Commission did not like that, and it proposed to abolish these border posts within the European Union, despite the fact that these different standards would persist on different sides of the border. It wrote:
“As a further … step towards the objective of abolishing internal frontier controls by 1992, all veterinary controls (live animals and animal products) and plant health controls will have to be limited to the places of departure, and controls of veterinary and plant health certificates made at the places of destination”.
Indeed, the Commission recognises that it is possible to maintain the security of its member states without controls at the border by doing so at the point of dispatch or the point of arrival. That is what it proposed  then, and it could equally have been applied in Northern Ireland, should have been applied, and could be applied in future if the present arrangements do not work out satisfactorily.
I would like the Minister to confirm the following. It is not clear from the language in Safeguarding the Union that the arrangements we are now talking about are all under the protocol. The protocol has not been abolished, rescinded or removed from our law; it is part of our law. It allowed changes to be made by agreement within “the committee”, consisting of two people, one from Britain and one from the European Union, and that, essentially, is what is being done. All these changes are being done under the protocol.
At the risk of boring the House, I will repeat what I think we ought all to remember: that the protocol is intrinsically temporary and transitional. That is not my view, but the view of the European Union at the time of the negotiations. Noble Lords may recall that Theresa May said in her Lancaster House speech that she wanted to negotiate a future trade arrangement between Britain and Europe at the same time as our withdrawal arrangements under Article 50. The European Union said that that was not possible. It could not do it even if it wanted to, because Article 50 does not provide a legal base for negotiating trade agreements. Trade agreements with non-member states can be negotiated by the European Union only under Article 234. Therefore, we had to leave first before it could negotiate trade arrangements with us. How come, then, that we reached agreement on trade arrangements as far as Northern Ireland and the European Union was concerned in the Article 50 withdrawal agreement? The EU said, “Well, that allows temporary and transitional measures, and only temporary and transitional measures, arising from the departure of a member state”. Therefore, the arrangements we entered into—the protocol—are temporary and transitional.
It would be wonderful if what the Government have agreed, and what the DUP has said is at least enough for it to go back into Stormont, works out smoothly and resolves all friction, both economic and political, arising from differences in EU and UK law and the attempt to resolve these via the Irish Sea. If so, we can all carry on and live happily ever after. However, if not—and I fear it may well not work out satisfactorily in the long term—we should remember that we have the right, under the agreement we negotiated with the European Union and its interpretation of it, to say that the protocol was temporary and must be replaced; and obviously, we want to replace it with something satisfactory to the EU, as our neighbour, and which would ensure the integrity of the single market. Therefore, we should adopt the method it proposed and used initially, and which subsequently Sir Jonathan Faull, himself a former director-general of the Commission, proposed as a way of resolving the problems we currently face.
I am glad that some progress has been made, I hope more progress has been made than meets the eye, and if not, alternative possibilities exist for the future.

Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick: My Lords, like the noble Lords, Lord Dodds and Lord Lilley, I offer my condolences to the family and colleagues of  Lord Cormack. Patrick Cormack was an outstanding political figure, serving as a parliamentarian in both Houses of this Parliament for many years. Before he left the House of Commons, he was chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee. I remember a visit that he made to Downpatrick around St Patrick’s Day. He read the lesson at the service in Down Cathedral, reflecting on the work of St Patrick that belongs to all traditions. That is the important thing—Lord Cormack was a unifying figure.
I welcome the return of the devolved institutions in Northern Ireland, so I welcome that aspect of the humble Address. There are other bits which I also welcome, including the adherence to the Good Friday agreement. Naturally, as a democratic Irish nationalist I believe in the unity of people on the island of Ireland. That is my aspiration; that is my identity; that is where I come from. However, there is a need, and it can happen, for peaceful coexistence between unionists, nationalists and others. That is embodied in the Good Friday agreement because it allows you to be British, Irish or both. It is important that this is totally reflected.
It is important that the institutions that we all voted for back in 1998 have been restored. They have been down more often than they have been operational, but the fact of their welcome was a feature that came out some weeks ago in the poll by LucidTalk and Queen’s University, Belfast, of February 2024. Why? It was because the public were crying out for the resumption of the institutions and for local delivery by local people elected by all of us for delivery and decisions on local services, whether health, education, economy or infrastructure.
That is not something that I view as a celebration. The institutions should never have been collapsed in February 2022 or in January 2017. The fact that the institutions can be collapsed by either of the big parties necessitates the need to look at reform of the institutions to ensure that mechanisms are put in place to prevent this from happening again. The bottom line is that the people of Northern Ireland want stable political institutions in place for the purposes of good governance and for delivering for the people, and they want the people who have been elected to govern and for the opposition—my colleagues in the SDLP—to do their job as well.
I said two weeks ago that I would not be content with the Command Paper because it was a deviation from a previous position, since it represented a unilateral decision-making process between the DUP and the UK Government—although listening here tonight you would not think that it was agreement between the UK Government and the DUP. The message must be clear: “Please cherish all traditions equally”, as required by the Good Friday agreement, which has been the hallmark for negotiations in Northern Ireland for nearly 38 years.
The current UK Government’s approach represents a departure from the GFA and from the Downing Street declaration. I say, not gently but very forcefully, that we all need to revert to the factory settings of the Good Friday agreement—to those principles of consent, inclusion and equality. Northern Ireland is a divided society, with unionists, nationalists and others. That is  why it is important to underscore and ensure the full implementation of the Good Friday agreement through the operation of all the institutions in all the strands—the Assembly, the Executive, the North/South Ministerial Council, the British-Irish Council and the British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference. That is why I want a renewed commitment from the current British Government to that bipartisan approach with the Irish Government, and I will ask the Irish Government the same. That means a true reflection of parity of esteem, partnership, power sharing, respect for political difference and the consent principle.
When will the next meeting of the British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference take place to discuss that range of economic, trade, joint working on health and cross-border and, importantly, east-west issues? When will the next meeting of the British-Irish Council on east-west issues take place? When will the next meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council and the full operation of the implementation bodies take place? I believe in that reset of the principles of the GFA where equality, human rights, equality of citizenship and protection of identity all, within a spirit of partnership, must be reflected.
That type of approach will enable the full benefits of the Windsor Framework to be realised. We have heard so much this evening about the negative side to the Windsor Framework. I have talked to many people in Northern Ireland. One of the results of the LucidTalk/Queen’s University poll showed that the majority opinion on the Windsor Framework is generally accepting or supportive of the arrangements established for Northern Ireland. Why? Because people want to move on. They want economic benefit. They want economic opportunity for their families and associates. We need access to that EU single market and the UK internal market. With the full realisation of the economic opportunities, with stability and political progress, we achieve a more balanced, peaceful reconciliation and shared society.
However, for our region to succeed, we need a significant budget to address the needs of our population. The challenges of health waiting lists, the crumbling fabric of our roads and schools, public sector reform and transformation are all required. People need access to services such as health waiting lists in a more expeditious manner without having to meet countless impediments. Assembly Members and Ministers must face these challenges and implement difficult decisions. While £3.3 billion on a conditional basis was a significant allocation, it presents dangers because some of that is recycled money, the Executive have significant overspends from previous years, and the public sector money, while very welcome, is not current expenditure and that money has to be found for future financial years out of the budget. Money that was earmarked for 10 new integrated schools in the fresh start agreement of 2015 seems to have disappeared and other money is no longer present either because a significant amount is now required for the full education budget. Where is the levelling-up money for Northern Ireland?
I also welcome the €800 million shared island funding from the Irish Government for cross-border infrastructure projects such as the A5, the Narrow Water bridge, Casement Park and the Boyne heritage centre. That  demonstrates a clear commitment by the Irish Government to deliver north-south projects and the much-needed bipartisan approach. Maybe in his wind-up, the Minister could advise us on the reform of the institutions. What discussions will the Government have with the Assembly and Executive Review Committee, and what analytical work has that committee commenced about the review of such institutions?
I do not support the amendment. I support that part of the Motion that deals with the restoration of the institutions. Much work needs to happen to create that economic opportunity, and that is why it is vitally important that we ensure that the full benefits of the Windsor Framework and the work of the institutions are realised for the people of Northern Ireland.
For me, this debate is about including everything, and the Good Friday agreement with its three-stranded approach, representing the three sets of relationships, affords us the opportunity to deal with that without fear of exclusion, marginalisation or triumphalism. The Good Friday agreement must be our lodestar—our guiding light. Bipartisanship and partnership, with parity of esteem, must be central to all our discussions. That must be the way forward. I defer to my noble friend Lord Murphy on the Front Bench, who was a significant negotiator in the Good Friday agreement and helped to bring forward—along with my colleagues in the SDLP, the Ulster Unionists and the Irish Government—that agreement, which was based on that duality of approach, partnership and parity of esteem. That is where we need to be to achieve progress and benefit for all the people, because I firmly believe that both Governments and all parties must work together, committed to bipartisanship, partnership and delivering for all. That is the way forward.
Reference has been made in the other place to the fact that there is no all-Ireland economy. One has to look only at the single electricity market, the agri-food industry which operates on a cross-border north-south basis, the Coca-Cola Company, and animal health, and the island of Ireland is considered a single epidemiological unit. It is a mistruth to say that that does not exist. We must face what are the political realities and the fact that there are many people in Northern Ireland, and all those political identities must be recognised and accommodated. The best way to do that is through the mechanisms and three-stranded approach that already exists in the Good Friday agreement.

Lord Jay of Ewelme: My Lords, I join others in expressing profound sadness at the death of Lord Cormack, whom I was proud to call a friend.
I welcome the re-establishment of Stormont and of devolved government in Northern Ireland. The governance of the United Kingdom is not particularly easy at present, and it is unlikely to get any easier under any Government elected at Westminster. But effective devolved government in Northern Ireland, as in Wales and Scotland—not straightforward, I agree—seems to be an essential part of that overall governance of the United Kingdom.
I note that recent opinion polls in Northern Ireland suggest a certain scepticism about the chances of Stormont surviving until the next elections—due in  2027. I hope  those polls are wrong, for there are huge tasks now for the Northern Ireland Executive, working with the British Government, to undertake. Among other things, the NHS waiting list, the education service, public sector pay and the clean-up of Lough Neagh require urgent and sustained attention. I hope now that they will get it.
I am struck by how many new institutions are announced in Safeguarding the Union. I look forward to more detailed information in due course on how they will all work. The proposed east-west council looks particularly relevant in focusing on some of Northern Ireland’s most challenging issues, including those that I have just mentioned. But I note too that the humble Address reaffirms the importance of upholding the Belfast/Good Friday agreement in all its strands—that too is essential, as the noble Lord, Lord Caine, and the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, have said.
It is a great honour to chair the House of Lords Sub-Committee on the Windsor Framework—scheduled, alas, to disappear at the general election. The Windsor Framework has, of course, not been changed by Safeguarding the Union and its accompanying documents, but the restoration of devolved government in Northern Ireland provides a real opportunity for Northern Ireland’s Executive to have an effective say in its operation. I look forward to working with the newly established committees in Stormont, including the new democratic scrutiny committee.
The Windsor Framework, though unchanged by the new arrangements we are discussing today, is not a fully fledged document—it is, indeed a framework. Nowhere is this more evident than over veterinary medicines, about which the Windsor Framework committee is now conducting an inquiry. That explains why some members of the committee recently spent two hours in a large, drafty barn in County Down with some impressive farmers, veterinary experts and several hundred sheep. I cannot pre-empt the conclusions of our inquiry, but we hope to produce a report shortly. I can say that we found widespread support in Northern Ireland for the proposal set out in Safeguarding the Union to rapidly establish a veterinary medicines working group, provided that the membership is right and includes real knowledge of, and expertise on, Northern Ireland.
That leads me to my last point. Neither the Government of the United Kingdom, nor the Northern Ireland Executive are—now that we are outside the European Union—around the Council tables when EU legislation is discussed and agreed. But much of that legislation will have effect in Northern Ireland and will affect farmers, consumers and businesses. Businesses in Northern Ireland will have access to the single market for goods of the European Union and be part of the internal market of the United Kingdom, and both are a clear advantage. However, a way must be found to ensure that direct first-hand knowledge of Northern Ireland is taken into account while legislation is being prepared, and not just when it has reached its finished state. I hope the Minister, who is still missed in our committee, will give us a reassurance on that point.

Lord Morrow: My Lords, like other noble Lords I particularly welcome the affirmation in the humble Address of the “foundational importance” of the provisions of Article VI, given that we are all aware that these provisions have been partly suspended in Northern Ireland because of the actions of this House and the other place in sanctioning Section 7A of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018.
If we agree the Motion, then we will be duty-bound—if we are not to be two-faced about it—to look to for the first opportunity to amend the withdrawal agreement Act, so that these provisions, which are not merely important but of foundational importance, can be restored to the people of Northern Ireland immediately. As Carla Lockhart, the Member for Upper Bann, observed yesterday in another place, you cannot remove foundations, even temporarily, without placing the superstructure that they uphold in jeopardy.
I will dig a little deeper into this point, drawing on the Minister’s letter to those of us who took part in the recent debate on the statutory instruments that give effect to the deal that occasioned the restoration of Stormont, which has in turn occasioned this humble Address. Having commented on economic ties between Northern Ireland, the rest of the UK and the Republic of Ireland, the Minister says:
“That is why the Command Paper places specific emphasis on ensuring Northern Ireland has full and unfettered access to the UK’s internal market as well as its privileged access to the EU single market”.
That really is the heart of the proposition—that the deal gives Northern Ireland full and unfettered access to the UK’s internal market and privileged access to the Republic.
However, how this can be the case when, first, all the product that has to travel on the red lane—which includes all inputs into Northern Ireland manufacturing coming from the rest of the economy of which Northern Ireland is a part—is subject to a customs border that is more demanding than that experienced by products travelling from Germany, a foreign country, to England, and secondly, when all the product that travels on the so-called UK internal market system is also subject to the fettering of customs and an SPS border?
Lest anyone should contest the fettered access provided by the UK internal market system, I would direct them to the place the fettering is set out: EU regulation 2023/1128, which amends the EU Customs Code to simplify customs border fettering, and EU regulation 2023/1231, which simplifies the SPS border fettering. I do not question the fact that both these provisions simplify the border fettering, but the critical point is that they do not remove it. If you do not comply with the border fettering put in your way by the misnamed UK internal market system, your only other options will be the red lane or not to cross the border.
Moreover—and this is critical—for so long as we submit to the Windsor Framework, we agree that these matters are ultimately for the EU to determine and that the simplification of the border fettering is enjoyed at its pleasure and could be removed if it  chooses to do so, defaulting back to the greater fettering of the red lane, as set out expressly in Article 14(5) of EU regulation 2023/1231.
By contrast, if we look at the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, we find no customs or SPS border fettering of any kind. I therefore suggest that the Minister transparently has it the wrong way round. The Government’s arrangements propose full and unfettered access to the Republic of Ireland and, to the extent of the so-called UK internal market system, privileged access to GB, in that while this does not afford us unfettered borderless access to GB, the fettering has been reduced from what would otherwise be the case.
This is a huge problem for unionism because unionists are very clear that our priority is our relationship with England, Scotland and Wales. The South decided to break away from that relationship. That was its decision. We regret it and stand with England, Wales and Scotland in our United Kingdom. In this context, while of course we want the best possible access to the Republic, that has to be subject to the basic unionist imperative—the union—and thus no customs fettering between any constituent part of the union.
The Safeguarding the Union Command Paper has things the other way around, prioritising the relationship with the South and the advent of a border between ourselves and the rest of the United Kingdom. It is a nationalist rather than a unionist solution because it sacrifices the unionist imperative. Of course, this all has to be seen in the context of the fact that the purpose of the border is to uphold the integrity of a different legal regime in Northern Ireland. That is the result of our disenfranchisement in relation to 300 areas of the laws to which we are subject, and the enfranchisement of a foreign Parliament. My noble friend Lord Dodds has already outlined specifics in relation to this issue.
In this respect, it is also important to reflect on the Minister’s assurances in his letter that the shortcomings of the brake are acceptable when seen in the context of the additional democratic consent safeguard—the so-called consent motion. The shortcomings of the brake include, of course, that it creates a second-class citizenship in which, rather than having the right to stand for election to make the laws to which you are subject, you have to make do with the right to stand for election to try to stop laws in 300 areas that have already been made for you by a foreign Parliament; and that it does not apply to all EU-imposed law anyway. We have already heard my noble friend Lord Dodds comment on that too.
That assertion simply does not stand up to scrutiny. The so-called democratic consent motion should really be called the “renouncing democratic consent procedure”, because that is, in effect, what it is. If, on the one hand, we humour the proposition that it constitutes democratic consent and treat it as a vote on all the laws made in the last three or four years, that does not work, both because it would be absurd to engage intelligently with three to four years’ legislation with one vote and because a no vote would not result in any of the legislation falling away. If, on the other hand, we treat it as a vote on all the laws to be made in the next three  to four years, that does not work, for the above reasons and because you cannot vote on legislation that does not yet exist.
The practical impact of a yes vote will be for an MLA to agree to renounce the rights of his or her citizens to be represented in the making of the laws to which they are subject in 300 areas for the next four to eight years, depending on the scale of the vote. Rather than the so-called consent motion filling the democratic shortfall of the brake, therefore, it merely compounds it.
I am of course aware—and this was mentioned earlier—that there has been debate in recent weeks around Bushmills whiskey, which I say very gently is completely beside the point, and a lot of tosh, to use an Ulster word. You do not have to be an expert on this at all, and I do not profess to be one, but, as anyone who knows anything about the history of internal markets knows, they have become progressively more integrated across the world over time, especially in the case of the United Kingdom because, as the celebrated German economist Friedrich List pointed out, England and the UK invented the internal market.
People did not wake up one morning and say, “Let’s create an internal market”; it evolved over time. Rather than judging attempts to take it from the perspective of what being in an internal market was like in 1802, we have to judge it from the perspective of what it is like now. The relevant point in looking at these matters today is what Article 6 delivers in the 21st century, which we enjoyed through the foundational provisions of Article 6 until 31 December 2020, which Parliament has now partially suspended, and yet which today this House is urged to tell His Majesty is not merely important but of foundational importance.
I hope that we pass this Motion, but let us be clear: if we do, we will then be duty-bound to restore those Article 6 rights, because no Parliament worth its salt can tell its Head of State that certain provisions are of foundational importance in the context of a Motion that is specifically about a people who have been partly deprived by that same Parliament of those same provisions.

Lord Bew: My Lords, first, I pay tribute to Lord Cormack, as have others in this House. He was a friend of mine. In 2015, I was asked by the then Lord Speaker to chair a Committee of both Houses along with Tristram Hunt, a Member of the other House, on the anniversaries of that year—mainly Magna Carta. It was also the 50th anniversary of Churchill’s death. Lord Cormack was my senior adviser on that committee. He was an enormously well-informed historian, as everybody here knows. He prevented me from making many stupid, callow errors, for which I was really grateful. I extend my sympathies to his family on this very sad day. I will miss Patrick Cormack, as will many others.
I speak in favour of this humble Address. In my opinion, it ends an era of instability in Northern Irish affairs which has existed since the 2017 joint report—an international agreement with the EU, which, for example, had the British Government supporting an island economy on the island of Ireland. It corrects and ends  an era of painful instability in Northern Ireland. This had to be done, but it takes time and negotiation is painful. I watched the debate yesterday in the other place. I had the feeling that one was looking at some of the acrimonious debates which have marked our life here for the past six years through the rearview window. I hope that we are moving away from those.
The point was made yesterday and alluded to briefly by the Minister tonight, about the definition of “joint authority”. I agree with the terms that he expressed on this. Yesterday, in the other place, it was stated that we do not have a definition. We have an official working definition. The New Ireland Forum Report from the Irish Government in 1984 states quite clearly that joint authority means shared responsibility by the two Governments for the administration of the affairs of Northern Ireland. It is clear to me that the humble Address closes the door firmly on this prospect. I do not think there is any ambiguity nor uncertainty about what joint authority is. We know what it is. The humble Address is absolutely clear-cut in this respect.
I have a sense that there is still a misunderstanding about what has been happening in the last few years, particularly around the standing of the Good Friday agreement. Members of this House will remember that there was a great dislike of the idea that the United Kingdom might ever tear up an international treaty. Quite apart from the protocol, the joint report of 2017 is also an international treaty. We would never unilaterally tear up an international treaty. Again and again, it was said to be the sort of thing that ill-tempered Putinesque regimes did, but certainly not the United Kingdom. What we witnessed instead was a long struggle in which the United Kingdom has said to the European Union, “You say you are also keen to support another international agreement—the Good Friday agreement. This is an international agreement lodged at the United Nations by the United Kingdom and the Government of Ireland, but there are tensions; for example, in the joint report and the protocol. We want to work with you to find the correct balance so that we can get back to something closer to the Good Friday agreement”. The Good Friday agreement states that the UK Government, being the sovereign Government, has a responsibility to deal with the alienation of one or other community. In this case, the alienation over the issues in the protocol is clearly within the unionist community. Every single unionist public representative made clear their alienation on that point.
At the beginning of this Parliament, the first letter that went from the UK Government to the European Union said that they were concerned that it had not got the correct balance of the Good Friday agreement. It was a delicate balance. A long labour to reach that point has now concluded. The important work on the island economy was part of that. The Good Friday agreement in no way mandated an island economy. I was present at some of the key discussions in the late 1990s. I remember the Irish Government, let alone the British Government, talking about co-operation between two economies on the island of Ireland.
I accept what the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, said about electricity and agri-food. I do not quite accept what she said about Coca-Cola, but I shall come to that. The slide towards something called the  island economy is essentially an ideological concept which puts pressure on unionists and has played a major role in the negative public mood in Northern Ireland in the last three or four years. This is not to say that there are not elements of an island economy. The case of Coca-Cola, which the noble Baroness mentioned, indicates a deeper complexity. Coca-Cola has to work with two taxation systems and two currencies. You would not normally call that a simple operation of island economy logic. This is more usually the case. To a greater extent, the Northern Irish economy remains integrated within the UK economy. That the UK Government were apparently committed to working against that was one of the destabilising factors. This is now over. It was essential, as the Safeguarding the Union Command Paper acknowledges.
There are two communities in Northern Ireland which both have rights under the Good Friday agreement. It is impossible to imagine a solution which did not involve some kind of compromise—which this still is. It is not the full achievement of a unionist wish list, nor could it ever be. It is a restructuring, a rebalancing of a previously highly unsatisfactory state of affairs. It is not the achievement of a unionist wish list, which, to be honest, would not be entirely desirable, given the balance of the two communities and the commitment of the UK Government. There is no point is replacing the alienation of one community with the alienation of another.
I note that Irish nationalists were perfectly happy with the provisions I have talked about concerning the role of the UK Government in facing up to the alienation of one community, when it came to the Irish language Act, which went through in this House and not in the Northern Ireland Assembly. They were very relaxed about that, but there has been much complaint about the Safeguarding the Union document. I understand why there is irritation, but I have tried to explain what it is. It is all about restoring the Good Friday agreement and the centrality of making it work again in future. To do this, the institutions have to be functioning—which they now are.
I will say a few words on the amendment and the issues around the Act of Union. The noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, complains, and the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, complains around irrelevant references about whiskey taxes. Had the proponents of the argument that was put about the Act of Union said at any point that they were aware of the schedule in Article VI which lists all these taxes which provide an Irish Sea border, it would not have been possible in the last couple of weeks for the debate to develop in the way in which it has. Suddenly, it has appeared for the first time that there is an issue, and that Article VI of the Act of Union included a series of what would be called pretty strong Irish Sea border measures. The difficulty would not be felt quite so clearly. It raises the question: had the proponents of this particular argument actually read the full text of the Act of Union? They would not have been vulnerable to what has happened in the last fortnight. They are quite right to say that it is not of itself a decisive point, but they would not have been vulnerable to the point at all had they shown any signs of having read the full document.
In general, I have a feeling that the whole question around the Act of Union lacks any proper historical dimension—any proper respect for the history of ideas. Isaiah Berlin, once said, quoting Immanuel Kant:
“Of the crooked timber of humanity, no straight thing was ever made”.
We are dealing here with the crooked timber of humanity. In the last few days, I have been reading Pitt’s speeches introducing the Act of Union. In general, he calls for equality of treatment for the King’s Irish subjects but then says that there are “unavoidable necessities” which mean “we cannot deliver that”. Straight away we are into the crooked timber of humanity. There is a very important commitment to equal treatment. The Command Paper is an attempt to restore that basic commitment but, for 80 years—or 79, to be precise—there was no equal treatment.
One thing that also frustrates me is the lack of serious discussion of the Command Paper and its historical sections, and the quite trivial level of public debate. It is not just about the history of the Act of Union. It reveals that customs and duties were paid throughout the large life of the Stormont Parliament. Again, this is a function of something else. The Act of Union was designed to create one nation across two countries. It failed. After 120 years, what is now the Republic of Ireland left. The core project failed. On the other hand, it worked in economic and social terms for Northern Ireland, and it emerged that parts of Northern Ireland had been alienated from British rule. Some 120 years later, as Lloyd George put it very precisely in 1920, there is not one people across two islands, there are two peoples on one island.
The Government of Ireland Act comes in at that point. It absolutely specifies that trade is an international matter and not a matter for the Stormont Parliament. We may disagree with that and we may dislike it, but it is absolutely clear. In 1938, when the Anglo-Irish trade agreement was signed, the unionist MPs hated it. They said that it was unequal treatment of Northern Irish businesses. They were completely right in everything that they said in the other place in May 1938, but they also made it clear that it was a matter for this Parliament and we have to accept the will of this Parliament. There is no question of these trade matters being a matter for the Stormont Parliament.
That raises a question: what, therefore, is the pre-protocol status of the Act of Union? It does not have any. At that moment of great challenge, just as a matter of reality, no unionist MP even thought to refer to that Act. Why? It is because they thought the new reality was the Government of Ireland Act, reflecting the fact that there are two Parliaments on the island of Ireland. That is why they do not refer to it, and that is why it is quite difficult to talk about the pre-protocol status of the Act of Union. No unionist MPs seemed to have thought there was any status for the Act of Union at that point.
All this comes down to one thing. For at least 100 years of the union—perhaps more like 120 to 130 years—there was a fairly vigorous Irish Sea border and customs to be paid. The union survived. It tells you something: that the so-called Irish Sea border is not, however defined, and what is intended under  Safeguarding the Union is really light compared with the actual provisions that had been the case for more than 100 years of the life of the union. What matters is the political will of the people of Northern Ireland. It is very simple in this respect.
I know it will be said that European law is a separate matter and complicates the issue. Of course it does, but it is also the case that the DUP’s seven tests cannot be made to include European law. When the history is written, the various arguments that they contain something to do with European law will run up against a very obvious problem: “EU law” is a small few words; if you wanted to be explicit about European law it would have been the easiest thing to include them in the seven tests. I know that people will say that this or that other test implies it, but it would have been the easiest thing to be explicit about. This is so obvious that it is an insult to the intelligence of the House to imply anything else. It was obviously a deliberate decision not to mention it in the seven tests. By the way, the idea is that the tests are based on commitments made by British Ministers. They are—they are all based in some way on things that Ministers had said that the people of Northern Ireland should get—but no British Minister said at the time the seven tests were announced, “We’re getting rid of European law”, which is the second reason why there is no possible argument that the seven tests are about European law.
It has also been said tonight that Sir Jeffrey Donaldson is saying some things that he did not say on platforms or during this long campaign. That is true, and a fair point, but the trouble is that people on the other side of this argument are also saying things today that they did not say during this long campaign. It is a game if we get to throwing around quotations. Personally, I do not think we should go there. We should move on. There is a moment now for a new, modernising unionism. I do not know whether the arguments at the weekend in the local press that the centre parties have peaked in Northern Ireland are correct—some of the polling suggests that—but it is certainly the case that a new, modernised unionism has opportunities electorally now that it did not have two weeks ago.

Lord Lexden: My Lords, I fully agree with the noble Lord, Lord Bew, that this humble Address to His Majesty deserves our full and enthusiastic support. It provides an excellent summary of the principles that should guide policy towards both Northern Ireland and British-Irish relations.
It is a great pity that these principles have not been followed consistently over recent years. If they had been firmly upheld at all times, we would have been spared much recent misfortune. The interests of the union would not have been compromised during negotiations over the terms of our withdrawal agreement from the European Union. The Government would have resisted the siren voices promoting their own invention: a fully-fledged all-Ireland economy.
Unionists have always championed cross-border co-operation where it would serve the interests of both sovereign states—difficult though it has been for us to forgive the lack of full security co-operation during  the Troubles, when our country had an absolute right to expect it from our neighbour. When I worked for Airey Neave in the late 1970s, I think I spent more time on this issue than on any other.
I hope that the principles that this House is endorsing through this humble Address will be noted and remembered in Dublin. Firmly and consistently applied, they will avoid future misunderstanding. The words “joint authority” should be banished from the political vocabulary. The concept is wholly incompatible with the stability and prosperity of Ulster.
The principles, summarised in the words of the humble Address, are fully and faithfully reflected in the Government’s recent Command Paper, Safeguarding the Union, which naturally looms large in this debate. What a remarkable document it is, even though it is not written in the clear, straightforward prose for which British official publications were once renowned. Control of its drafting should have been placed in the hands of my noble friend Lord Caine. He knows how to expound policy in clear English, as his speeches in and outside Parliament demonstrate. Audiences in the United States in particular have benefited from listening to him.
One reason why the Command Paper is remarkable is that it commits Ministers and officials to a huge amount of extra work. They will be rushed off their feet if the document’s many pledges and promises are to be implemented in full. They will also be adding to the labours of businessmen and many others who will be needed to assist the Government’s bold programme of action.
We are promised an outburst of feverish official activity: 24 separate initiatives are summarised in paragraph 43 of the Command Paper which, it states, are to be
“delivered according to an agreed timetable”.
It would be good to have details of this timetable. I cannot find them anywhere in the Command Paper. The list of new initiatives includes new UK Government structures, new UK Government-Northern Ireland Executive structures, an independent monitoring panel, a new internal market assessment in the regulatory impact assessment process, a strengthened independent review of the Windsor Framework underpinned by a statutory duty, the establishment of a new body to be known as “Intertrade UK”, and a UK east-west council which, among other things,
“will drive engagement aimed at developing and sharing existing clusters of excellence”
and
“scope the establishment of a Northern Ireland Hub in London to provide an increased opportunity for Northern Ireland stakeholder engagement”.
The Government’s hectic programme of promised new work does not stop there. There is much more. We can look forward to a “turbocharged Enhanced Investment Zone”, a horticulture working group, better road connections with Great Britain—though there does not seem to be anything about better air services—investment in ports, a twinning programme for schools, a series of papers which
“will evidence the mutual benefits of Northern Ireland’s place in the Union”,
and a review to increase awareness of the Northern Ireland defence sector.
That is by no means a comprehensive list of the measures that are now to unfold. Even on the last page of the Command Paper the cascade continues. We are told that
“a UK Government Sports Minister will visit within the first month of a new Executive to discuss with the Executive how to take forward the prompt and effective delivery of the Sub-Regional Football Stadia Strategy”
My noble friend Lady Hoey once held the post of Sports Minister. I hope the present incumbent is acquitting himself with the same vigour—a vigour which, as all her speeches show, remains undiminished.
While wondering a little sceptically whether all that has been promised in the Command Paper will actually be accomplished, every unionist in Northern Ireland itself and elsewhere must rejoice that so much action is now contemplated to safeguard the Union, and all of it will benefit the people of Northern Ireland as a whole, whatever their political persuasion.
The numerous commitments that have now been given will enable the Government to carry conviction when they set out, as they undertake to do on page 72 of the Command Paper, to make
“unashamedly ... the positive case for Northern Ireland’s integral place in the United Kingdom”.
Yet it should never have become necessary for a Government drawn from the Conservative and Unionist Party to make such a declaration. Robust defence of the union should be their unchanging core characteristic. Sadly, it has not been. That is what happens when someone such as Mr Boris Johnson is given charge of our country’s affairs. The Conservative and Unionist Party has ground to make up.
We unionists will not go far wrong if we stick to the precepts of the great Lord Castlereagh, the principal architect of the Act of Union, who gets a mention in the Command Paper. At the time of his death in 1822, the Duke of Wellington’s brother described Castlereagh as a man whose life had been
“most favourable to all the just views and interests of our Roman Catholic fellow subjects, and most practically beneficial to the general welfare, happiness and prosperity of Ireland”.
The new spirit of zeal which the Command Paper is designed to instil into the Government of Northern Ireland is not yet apparent here in London. I recently had the great good fortune to become a member of the European Affairs Select Committee’s Sub-Committee on the Windsor Framework. Ministers are, at the moment, taking far too long to reply to the urgent matters that the sub-committee brings before them. When replies do come, they tend to be incomplete or evasive. We are fortunate to have a chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Jay, who constantly reminds Ministers of their duties to us.
I end where I began by praising the words of this humble Address. It might perhaps have been even better with the addition of an extra sentence. Would it not have been appropriate for us to express our thanks to His Majesty and members of the Royal Family for their unswerving commitment to all the people of Northern Ireland, and for their contribution to British-Irish relations? A list of the engagements they have carried out in Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic  would be of formidable length. So many communities of all kinds, and so many individuals within them, will have cause to remember the interest that a royal visitor took in them, often assisting them in circumstances of grave distress. It is a record of service that has undoubtedly meant a great deal to that portion of our country for whose greater stability and prosperity we must all strive.

Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown: My Lords, those who have shown a keen interest in Northern Ireland affairs understand that the protocol that was foisted upon the people of Northern Ireland caused real damage to stability in our Province, even though it was heralded by many in this House as positive and something that should be embraced by all. It was claimed that the protocol was seeking to safeguard and preserve the core principles of the Belfast agreement, but in fact it had the opposite effect.
The lesson from these past years is the necessity to have a consensus in a divided community—not the usual pandering over the years to republican demands but a genuine consensus from both unionists and nationalists at every juncture. It has been the convention of Stormont since 1972, some 26 years before the Belfast agreement, that controversial decisions cannot be made on a majoritarian basis. Indeed, the use of majoritarian votes, which are to be returned in November, was peddled as the republican excuse for the Troubles and was abandoned.
How have we got to where we are today? With the protocol having caused such damage to Northern Ireland’s constitutional position within the United Kingdom, and indeed to our economy, it was modified by the Windsor Framework—another short-term fix seeking to cobble together something that would, it was hoped, pull the wool over the eyes of unionists and allow normal programming to proceed.
The Democratic Unionist Party laid before the people of Northern Ireland seven solemn tests. The noble Lord, Lord Bew, may not know this, but we do know what those seven tests really mean. It was by those tests which any deal would be measured, and I have not deviated from the true spirit of those tests. The Government have now got the Northern Ireland Assembly up and running, and, personally, I believe that is all they really cared about. But those who are unionists by conviction must constantly hold this Government’s feet to the fire.
We would be foolish to accept mere promises or empty rhetoric from this Government, recognising that successive Governments have broken promises to the people of Northern Ireland in the past. In recent debates, Members of this House warned us that, if we did not accept what was offered in the Windsor Framework, we would be heading to joint authority between London and Dublin. That was the big stick that was wielded over our heads. Yet in the other place yesterday—this is amazing—the Alliance Member of Parliament, Stephen Farry, said
“I too am happy to put on record that I do not believe that joint authority is part of the Good Friday agreement”.
It is amazing that he did not share this statement with his colleagues in this House. Of course, we need to note that he acknowledges this now, when the Assembly  has been restored. It was good enough for his friend the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, to threaten us with this during the debates in this House, as if it was included in the Belfast agreement. Indeed, they are all coming out of the woodwork now, for the shadow Secretary of State Hilary Benn MP, in yesterday’s debate in the other place, also said
“it is simply a fact that the Good Friday agreement and the Northern Ireland Act 1998 do not provide for joint authority with the Irish Government over what happens inside Northern Ireland. That is also acknowledged by the Irish Government”. —[Official Report, Commons, 26/2/24; cols. 63 and 74]
However, we all know that the Irish Government have sought to interfere in the internal affairs of Northern Ireland, even telling us that the basis on which the Assembly operates should be changed. We all know that there are those who want the principle of consent to be done away with, and any unionist who enters into such negotiations to that end would be surrendering to a full-blooded republican agenda in Northern Ireland.
The humble Address that has been moved by the Minister is supposed to give the unionist people of Northern Ireland reassurance and comfort. But when one delves into its substance, one has to ask: does it? It reaffirms the importance of upholding the Belfast agreement of 1998 in all its strands, and I welcome the desire expressed. However, on examination, do the current arrangements have that effect? Do they not rather place them in jeopardy, such that they should be changed as a matter of the greatest urgency?
The heart of that agreement was cross-community consent, but that has not been upheld. The consent principle was heralded as a bedrock of the agreement of 1998 and was respected from 1998 until 2020. The Belfast agreement is a treaty in international law that states that any change in the status of Northern Ireland must only be with the consent of the majority of its people. But at the behest of the European Union, there has been a change to the voting arrangements in the Assembly. Since 1992, votes and issues that have been contentious could not be decided on a majority basis, but the Minister knows full well that arrangements that undermine the principle of consent have already been put in place. The Windsor Framework directly violates the consent principle—even though this humble Address states the opposite. It involves far-reaching constitutional change transferring 300 areas of law to a legislature including the Irish Republic but excluding the United Kingdom without the prior consent of the people of Northern Ireland; nor do the elected representatives of the people of Northern Ireland have any power to change them. There has been much talk of the Stormont brake as the way to stop the EU juggernaut in its tracks, but where the Stormont brake applies we have to accept that the Assembly has the demeaning right only to try to stop laws that have already been made for us by a foreign Parliament—so much for consent and democracy.
Through the determined efforts of my colleagues, some important changes have been made, but a few words in an humble Address to His Majesty will not undo the serious damage that has been done to our constitutional position within the union. This Government’s surrendering to the demands from the European Union has undermined  our relationship with the rest of the United Kingdom. In many areas of our lives, we are termed legally as “a third country”—not as an integral part of the United Kingdom. Our current arrangements may technically be acceptable from the vantage point of the way our dualist system approaches international law, but they are not remotely acceptable in terms of an humble Address which implies that we are fully compliant with the requirements of the Belfast agreement, when nothing can be further from the truth—at least be honourable enough to tell the people the truth.
Let us not forget that this Address is not an address to anyone but an humble Address to His Majesty the King, and, as such, Parliament has a particularly developed obligation to speak the truth. Therefore, it must be pointed out that rather than respecting the Belfast agreement, which we are constantly reminded is the binding international law, we have since 1 January 2021 flouted it, and we continue to do so. Rather than standing up to the EU, our Government have simply abandoned the principle of consent and in November of this year, Northern Ireland will be travelling back in time for its first majoritarian vote on a matter of great controversy for over 50 years. That vote cannot be regarded as a vote in one job lot on all the laws imposed in the last four years. Quite apart from the fact that you cannot deal with four years of legislation in a single vote, a no vote would not result in the repeal of those laws; it is actually a Stormont vote to cede power for a period of years to a group of states including the Republic of Ireland and excluding the United Kingdom and would be the most controversial vote in the history of Stormont. Of course, we know that, as usual, Sinn Féin, the SDLP, the Alliance Party et cetera will all be delighted to slavishly obey their masters in Europe.
There is no doubt in my mind that, no matter how flowery or honeyed the words uttered in this humble Address or in the assurances given, we in Northern Ireland have in a number of areas been detached from the mainstream British economy, and that can be rectified only when 300 areas of law are removed and brought under the control of our local elected assembly, when the principle of consent is restored as proposed under the Belfast agreement, and when the Irish Sea border is dismantled and Dublin’s interference in our internal affairs ceases. We as unionists have a positive case to present, but we must honestly admit there is much more work to be done to arrest the undermining of the union and stop the eroding of important aspects of our constitutional position within our precious United Kingdom. If the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, were to press her amendment to a vote, I would certainly join her in the Lobby.

Lord Godson: My Lords, I rise in praise of the humble Address today and join other noble Lords in recalling with pleasure the memory of the late Lord Cormack. He touched many of our lives in this House—mine included, because he was a proud son of Grimsby, a Grimbarian in the local parlance, where he ran for Parliament in 1966 in a massive losing campaign against Anthony Crosland. I ran many years later in 1997 and he taught me many good lessons, not least the virtue of losing graciously. I hope that it does not  strike too partisan a tone in this House tonight to say that we both derived tremendous pleasure when, for the first time since 1935, a Conservative was elected there in 2019 as part of the tumbling of the red wall.
I also wish to express my appreciation for my noble friend Lord Caine and his efforts as these labours with the Windsor Framework and its outworkings come to a conclusion. Though principally a matter for the Cabinet Office and for the FCDO, much of the burden has fallen on him in this House and not always in easy circumstances, as indeed was the case with the legacy legislation which he shepherded through here. He is of course the institutional memory of the Conservative and Unionist Party on the Front Bench, along with my noble friend Lord Lexden, and I pay tribute to him in this context.
Our business tonight focuses on the humble Address, principally the Windsor Framework and its outworkings, as I have said. Perhaps the most important commitment in the Belfast agreement is that of the two Governments in the British-Irish agreement—one of many endorsed by the parties to the agreement—to respect the legitimacy of the majority of the people of Northern Ireland to maintain the union. The Command Paper, Safeguarding the Union, which sets out the measures to maintain the union, is entirely in line with that core principle and commitment in the Belfast agreement.
In 1998, my late friend Lord Trimble negotiated the Belfast agreement. One of his key concerns was ensuring that what was termed Strand Three, or the east-west links, was not exclusively about London-Dublin but rather was balanced by links that included and recognised Northern Ireland, thus strengthening its place within the union under that Strand Three. Few unionists, me included, appreciated his concerns at the time, but time has vindicated his approach.
Time has also vindicated his focus on winning the incorporation of the British-Irish Council alongside the British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference within that overall Strand Three route. Again, that demonstrates that the east-west arrangements set out in the Belfast agreement were not merely confined to relations between the Republic and the UK but played an important part in the UK Government’s arguments that the protocol was not protecting the Belfast agreement. That is a far-sighted achievement on the part of my late friend Lord Trimble. I am sure that he would now be an enthusiastic supporter of the east-west council and would be pleased by its association in the Command Paper with the British-Irish Council, which he fought for 26 years ago.
My late friend Lord Trimble’s other great success in 1998 that influenced the outcome of these recent negotiations was his refusal to countenance any reference to the all-island economy in the Belfast agreement. When Theresa May agreed the September 2017 joint report, with its acceptance of the application of EU law in Northern Ireland to “support … the all-island economy”, Lord Trimble was stirred to action. Writing in June 2019 a paper for the Policy Exchange think tank, which I work for, he wrote that the all-island economy was
“politically and ideologically motivated, not pragmatic. It is also not consensual — and it is consent that is the true underpinning of North-South co-operation”.
His efforts led to the removal of any reference to the all-island economy from the revised protocol in October 2019. I am glad to be able to say that the Government will remove the requirement for Ministers to pay due attention to the protection of the all-island economy in relation to goods. Thus is the last mention of the all-island economy removed from our statute book. I know how pleased he would have been that the long push-back that he initiated against giving any legal acknowledgment to the concept of an all-island economy is now to be completed.
I reiterate that I applaud the Government for being so forthright in demonstrating their commitment to maintaining the union, the maintenance of which continues to have the overwhelming support of the majority of the people of Northern Ireland. Their actions are therefore entirely consistent with the principle of consent, which, as indicated earlier, remains at the heart of the Belfast agreement.

Baroness Goudie: My Lords, I want to pay my respects to Lord Cormack, who was a great friend to me from the time when I first went to work for the House magazine, where he was a senior editor. He was kind to me then and when I came into this House many years ago. We had many great conversations about Northern Ireland as well as about the Catholic Church and the Church of England. He used to call me a cradle Catholic—which at the time, until I got a bit happier about it, used to infuriate me—but I really loved Patrick and I am sorry for his family. We in this House will miss him deeply.
I welcome the debate tonight on the humble Address, which I support. I am proud to sit on the Windsor Framework Sub-committee under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Jay, who has been very patient with us over the years in guiding us through many discussions and visits to Northern Ireland. I will not repeat the words that we heard from my colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, but the committee has been treated badly in terms of replies to letters we have sent to Ministers, responses from civil servants and attendance by Ministers. That has been a disgrace. It is all in writing and we know what has happened, but it is important that that is repeated yet again today—without going through the litany that the noble Lord kindly put to the House.
I congratulate the First Minister and Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland. I hope that, with support, they will be able to continue to take Northern Ireland through to its next stages.
I reaffirm the importance of the Good Friday agreement, with all its strands. Not only is the agreement important to the future of Northern Ireland; it is also important for the future of other peace agreements. The Good Friday agreement has lasted longer than any other peace agreement, and that is because it was also signed by women. Women were part of that agreement—they were at the table—and will continue to be part of such agreements. It is vital that this Government continue to promise that women will be at the peace table, especially now that we are looking at Ukraine or Palestine and Israel, because we have seen what women bring to it.
What they brought as part of the Good Friday agreement was the promise of investment. That has come not only from the EU but, thanks to the American Government and the work of Senator Joe Kennedy III, from companies coming to Northern Ireland not only from Ireland itself but from around the world. That has helped the economy, and the peace, of Northern Ireland. When people have work and money in their pockets so they can support their families and themselves, that makes a difference. That investment must continue for the future.
That brings me to the British Government and the Northern Ireland economy. They must put money into the health service because at present we know that a number of operations, especially for children, are being done in Ireland itself, and we are grateful to the Irish Government. The Erasmus+ programme for students from Northern Ireland is also being funded by Ireland itself.
Further, we should have money into education. We have just seen in the last few days that the integrated education programme has been cut. Again, that is vital to peace in Northern Ireland. As a Catholic, I can see why it is important that we have integrated education in Northern Ireland in particular and in other countries in the same situation. I look to the Government to replace that money for integrated education. A huge amount of money needs to be given to the schools of Northern Ireland, where repairs are needed.
My noble friend mentioned levelling-up money. A lot of work needs to be done on levelling up, as well as repairs on housing estates. If you go and see those, you will see that it is not fair to expect people to live in some of the accommodation that they are living in. For the peace to continue, the Government must put money into health and education, as we agreed in the Good Friday agreement, and must continue to encourage investment from outside. That is why I remind us what it involves for the UK. Continuing to reaffirm the European Convention on Human Rights is also vital.
We welcome the return of the devolved Government, the Assembly and the Executive, and we welcome the belated return of the devolved institutions of Northern Ireland, which have been too long not there to give leadership to the people of Northern Ireland. They must endure. That is of course in no way contrary to the great importance of the joint working and full co-operation between the UK and Irish Governments.
The Acts of Union 1800 and the Northern Ireland Act 1998 obviously continue to apply. They are the elements of the sovereign Parliament that will remain good law until they are amended by Parliament. It must be clear that they are not entrenched nor constantly fundamental. What Parliament has done, Parliament can change. That might be academic at the moment but may not always be so. A future Parliament will represent the public in future years. No section of opinion has a permanent or indefinite veto or stronghold in relation to the constitutional status of Northern Ireland or otherwise.

Lord Hay of Ballyore: My Lords, I welcome the Motion moved by the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Caine, regarding the humble Address being presented  to His Majesty. The Motion deals with a number of issues: the return of the devolved institutions in Northern Ireland; reaffirming the importance of upholding the Belfast agreement, even when the Government have driven a horse and cart through it on occasions; the whole issue of the agreement—which is not actually in the agreement—of joint authority; and acknowledging the fundamental importance of the Acts of Union 1800, including the economic provisions under Article VI of those Acts.
As I say, the debate in this House is welcome. Any debate that highlights the economic benefit of the union has to be welcome. However, I say to the House, as I have said here before, that neither Parliament nor the courts ultimately decide Northern Ireland’s future. It is the people of Northern Ireland who will decide our future in the United Kingdom. Our job as unionists is to continue to persuade the majority that they are better off in a United Kingdom. We can bring all the Motions that we want concerning the union economically and socially, and that is all very good, but we are the custodians of the union now and in the future.
It is very important that we address some of the issues. Certainly, I am proud of Northern Ireland for delivering the terms of a growing manufacturing industry. I will give an example. Right now, one in three aircraft seats in every aircraft across the world is manufactured in Northern Ireland. Every Airbus wing includes components manufactured in Northern Ireland. We also have a growing world-class creative industry, as is evidenced by the number of new films and television series that are being produced in Northern Ireland. These are all growing the economy.
We have a talented workforce. The costs of establishing a business in Northern Ireland are roughly 40% lower than elsewhere in the United Kingdom. As a result of recent negotiations, we have won further access to the UK internal market. As our economy grows, further support for the union will also grow. That is a very important point to make.
I believe that delivering effective government for our people is necessary. Working alongside this Parliament now and in the future, we must continue to ensure that Northern Ireland will benefit and play its full part alongside England, Scotland and Wales in the long-term future growth of this United Kingdom. On these Benches, we will continue to loudly campaign to champion policies that will benefit and support families and businesses across Northern Ireland and all parts of this United Kingdom.
As a devolutionist, I want devolved government to succeed in Northern Ireland. I want to see decisions taken on education, health, the economy and many other issues. Decisions that impact the lives of people are best taken at local level in Northern Ireland. We all know how direct rule worked in the past. We were there. Direct rule Ministers flew into Northern Ireland, flew out of Northern Ireland, and made decisions over the heads of the people of Northern Ireland with no accountability whatever. Direct rule did not work and was not best for Northern Ireland. I know from speaking to many Ministers in those days that they really did not want to take the decisions. They were continually saying, “These are decisions that should be taken by local Ministers”, and rightly so.
I welcome the recent efforts by the Government, working alongside my party, to find a way forward on issues surrounding the Northern Ireland protocol and the Windsor Framework. Leadership is about making the difficult decisions. We can all stand on the sideline and make the easy decisions, but then, when you are in the heat of the kitchen, you have to make the decision. I believe that my party leader and my party were right to make the decision that they made to get back into the Assembly and work the Assembly, but it is work that is not finished. Let us continue to work with this Government to keep their feet to the fire in all of the issues that have been mentioned tonight.
For unionism to prosper in the decades to come, it must be inclusive. Unionism must maximise its potential. We can get there by making Northern Ireland work as a full and equal part of this United Kingdom. For Northern Ireland to work, our Government need to work as well. The system of devolution in Northern Ireland is far from perfect. In many areas, there needs to be improvement, but it must always be on a basis that can command cross-community support. When they are operational, for all their problems—and there are many problems that this Assembly and Executive are going to have—the Stormont Assembly and Executive are accountable to the people of Northern Ireland. They are there to deliver for the people of Northern Ireland. That is an important point. They should now get on with the job and deliver for the people.
It is very clear that power sharing works only with consent across the community. Indeed, cross-community consent was the very basis of the agreement that so many claim to understand and champion. The arrangements within the Northern Ireland protocol did not have the consent of the unionist communities. My colleagues here in this Chamber argued that particular point for months and years, to the point that we felt at one time that nobody was really listening. We said that the protocol did not have the support of the unionist community. While others called for its implementation, dismissing the concerns of unionists, my party continued to work to find a way forward.
I can remember that we were told by some noble Lords in this Chamber that this was an international agreement and just could not be changed. We would just have to suck it up and get on with it. We were able to go in and negotiate a change to the protocol, which ended up as the Windsor Framework. It still did not go far enough to do what was needed to be done, but we proved the point that, as we argued in this House, when it came to an international agreement, yes, it could be changed. That is important.
I also welcome InterTrade UK, which will cover not only the availability of goods in Northern Ireland but trade across the UK—between Scotland and England, England and Wales, and so on. This welcome development will, I hope, encourage greater investment, co-operation and trade within the United Kingdom. Here in the United Kingdom, we have a market in the region of 60 million people. It is the second-biggest market in Europe, and we should be selling more of our own goods to our people across this nation. It is the responsibility of us all to develop and enhance stronger bonds and links across this United Kingdom.
I welcome too the monitoring committee, the east-west council and the new provisions on rest-of-the-world products. The Government’s commitment to stand by Northern Ireland in the absence of a resolution on veterinary medicines is also to be welcomed. That is a very important point to make in this House, because veterinary medicine has become a big issue here and in the other place.
My party has often been blamed for many of the problems that flowed from the Government’s unforgivable move when the protocol was initially implemented. It is regrettable that, on that occasion, government promises were not kept. We were let down by the Johnson Government—by a Prime Minister who told us that there would be an Irish Sea border over his dead body and then, to add insult to injury, came to Northern Ireland and said that publicly. But he went a step further, telling the business community when it asked what to do about all the paperwork relating to the Irish Sea border, “Send it to me and we’ll tear it up and bin it.” You can understand why unionists mistrust this Government—and it had taken a long time to build that trust. I am not sure whether that trust is fully instilled in us yet, as a party and a Government. I hope that it is, and that we can move on from those days.
It is my hope that Stormont is now back up and running and that, with the continued work on the remaining issues and with these new measures agreed, Northern Ireland can start moving forward again as an important part of this United Kingdom. My colleagues here have rightly raised a number of issues and concerns, and I hope the Government will take them on board and deal with them. My colleagues have a right to hold those concerns, and it is only right that the Government try to address them. That would be an important start.
The case for the union is a compelling one. Maintaining the union is the responsibility of us all. All those who value and respect our United Kingdom, across all its parts, must seize the opportunity before us to promote and safeguard it for future generations.

Lord Browne of Belmont: My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to debate the Motion on the humble Address before us this evening. I am pleased to support the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey. The economic and cultural ties that bond the various parts of this nation are unmatched. Developing strong links across these isles and our open UK markets have brought huge benefits to England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland for decades.
Unionism in its simplest form is a desire to remain part of the United Kingdom family. Inside this union, everything we have built together is the source of three centuries of mutual co-operation, work and prosperity. We share not only a currency union, a language and common standards; we are socially integrated too. Our strongest cultural bonds, interests, histories and values are the ones we share right across the United Kingdom. A strong United Kingdom, growing together, is in all our interests—now and long into the future. We have a duty to continue working to protect and strengthen the bonds in the United Kingdom.
I contend that there has never been a more important moment to discuss strengthening these bonds than now. For long-term peace, prosperity and growth to continue, all parts of the United Kingdom must play a full and equal part in its future development. That future development needs to include Northern Ireland. We must continue to work together across all corners of our United Kingdom to strengthen these bonds.
Since the outset of the United Kingdom Government’s negotiations with the European Union, my noble friends and I warned that the European Union had the potential to inflict significant economic damage on one part of the United Kingdom and thus on our sovereignty. Fundamentally, the root cause of the problems with the Northern Ireland protocol and Windsor Framework arrangements is the continued application of EU law in Northern Ireland—in particular, its covering all manufacturing of goods in Northern Ireland, regardless of whether they are being sold in the United Kingdom or to the European Union.
The protocol/Windsor Framework arrangements have been deeply regrettable. There are numerous examples of sea border checks disrupting businesses, and we have seen the damage done as a result of economic barriers being erected between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Businesses have regularly faced, and many continue to face, obstacles. The volume of trade movements across the Irish Sea has been falling since the imposition of the Irish Sea border. It has been clear for some time that haulage companies based in Northern Ireland whose business model is predicated on being part of the United Kingdom economy face real hurdles in terms of cost implications and bureaucracy.
The numerous trading difficulties resulting from the protocol have highlighted the need for further steps to be taken. It is regrettable that a Motion such as today’s is even necessary. The Northern Ireland protocol and the Windsor Framework certainly did not respect the foundational importance of the Acts of Union. Of course, I welcome the recent efforts to find a solution to the issues surrounding the Northern Ireland protocol. There has undoubtedly been some little progress made. I welcome InterTrade UK and provisions aimed at easing trade friction, including the monitoring committee, the east-west council and the new provisions relating to rest-of-world products. However, much work lies ahead, and these issues have been far from adequately addressed.
I recognise that some decisions have been made that will smooth the operation of trade which impacts businesses in Northern Ireland. There will, I understand, also be a reduction in some checks, and this too is to be welcomed. However, it is also very clear that an economic border remains in place and that ultimately, the European Union has the final say in many significant areas. Paperwork will continue to be required for customs purposes, and already we see border posts being built in Northern Ireland ports. Northern Ireland will continue in many ways to be treated as an EU territory. Many questions remain and we will continue to engage with the Government on all of these. Indeed, under Article 12 of the Northern Ireland protocol, which remains unchanged, the EU can direct UK authorities at ports.
It is clear that we have not yet arrived at a point where friction is completely gone and there are zero checks and zero paperwork for goods moving between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland continues to adhere to the EU customs code, and 1.9 million UK citizens remain disfranchised. Northern Ireland Ministers and Assembly Members in Northern Ireland will be expected by law to adhere to and implement laws being made in Brussels and Strasbourg—not here, not in the other place, and not in the devolved Assembly at Stormont. Friction and barriers therefore remain between parts of the United Kingdom. These barriers are not solely economic. They are constitutionally significant, because laws and diktats identical to those imposed on Northern Ireland govern trade in the Irish Republic. Northern Ireland therefore remains in dynamic alignment in many areas not with the rest of the United Kingdom but with the EU and therefore with the Republic of Ireland.
My party is a devolutionist party. We want to see governance in Northern Ireland which works and which operates on the basis of consensus. There was no consent within unionism for the Northern Ireland protocol or for barriers being implemented between parts of the United Kingdom. Problems that still exist with the protocol/Windsor Framework mean that the rights of the people of Northern Ireland have not yet been fully restored. If Northern Ireland citizens and businesses are to be treated as equal to our fellow Britons elsewhere in the United Kingdom, the constitutional integrity of the UK internal market must be fully restored. To arrive there, we must respect and fully restore the Acts of Union for Northern Ireland, and fully, not partially, remove the Irish Sea border. Attaining the changes needed will require further legislation, further efforts and co-operation. I hope and trust that the Government will provide an update on the timetable for this work. I also ask the Minister for an update on a timetable for Northern Ireland setting its own VAT rules.
For those of us who value our place in the United Kingdom, safeguarding and protecting Northern Ireland’s long-term place inside the UK internal market and inside the union is the most important responsibility we have. Northern Ireland remains governed by a swathe of EU laws we cannot legally change. Further EU regulations will still cause Northern Ireland to diverge from the rest of the United Kingdom in a number of areas. We must continue to work to address these outstanding issues.
The rights of the people of Northern Ireland under the Acts of Union have not been fully restored. While I welcome some government promises and future legislation, I feel there is some way to go before we can say that these issues have been adequately addressed. We are committed to continuing to raise these issues and to working with other noble Lords, the Minister and the Government to resolve the issues. The work must be about delivering on the commitments given to fully protect Northern Ireland’s place within United Kingdom. I desire to see a thriving Northern Ireland where all communities are at peace with one another and enjoy the benefits of being an important part of this United Kingdom.

Lord Eames: My Lords, one of my mistakes—and I have made many as Primate of All Ireland—was the occasion when I invited the late Patrick Cormack to visit St Patrick’s cathedral in Armagh. I prided myself that, having shown many visitors round that sacred building, I had very little to learn. Within 10 minutes of the start of our tour, I had lost myself completely. He knew dates, facts, figures, measurements; he knew quotations, he knew the names of my predecessors, right back to St Patrick. I felt ashamed of my stance on that occasion.
That was only one part of a very long friendship I had with Patrick. It started when he was chairman of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee; it endured the variations leading to the Downing Street Declaration; it endured disagreements; it endured the situation when the new Bishop of Lincoln was introduced to this House and said of himself “I am the other Bishop of Lincoln”. For Patrick was wrapped in his faith, his church, his beliefs and love of this building. I am so glad tonight to have heard the frequent references to him. I believe, had he been spared, he would have been sitting at the end of that Bench, because Northern Ireland was very much engraved on his heart, rightly or wrongly. I will miss him, and I think, in its own way, Northern Ireland will as well.
Tonight, I believe, is, in its own way, a turning point. We have heard numerous references to disappointment and to failures of the document we are discussing, worries about its long-term effects and that much is needed to be done, even now, to make it acceptable and worth while. But tonight’s debate would not be taking place had it not been for one simple fact: Stormont is back—Stormont, with its shortcomings, its failures, yes, and its history. I speak as the grandson of a member of the former Lord Brookeborough’s Government all those years ago. With all its failures, with all its shortcomings, Northern Ireland has got its Stormont back.
Despite all we have listened to and the sincerity with which it has been expressed by those who have had to pay a great price politically for taking the stance that they have—let us acknowledge that—my belief tonight is that this place of so much history, back in operation, can represent a turning point in so much of the other problems that we know exist.
We can talk about Brexit, Europe, former Prime Ministers and Secretaries of State—we can go on all night, and at one stage tonight I felt that we might. We can go on listing the various shortcomings and giving thanks to those who have brought us to the point at which this local Administration or Government—call them what you will—will tackle local issues, but the fetters on allowing them to do so must be removed. That is up to the British Government.
We heard tonight about some of those difficulties, but I will concentrate in only a few words on one aspect of how I see the current situation. I think of our young people. I think of those at university and school, for whom much that we endured and came through is only a page in a history book. Not for them the endless funerals, the endless explosions and the endless suffering, but they are a part of us who are  here and have come to this point in the history of Northern Ireland. Whether for the politicians or for those of us who, like me, knelt beside many bedsides and stood beside many graves, today could be a turning point.
The phrase I want to put on record is this: look forward. Learn from the mistakes and hurt of the past but, in God’s name, look ahead for the sake of the generation of Roman Catholic, Protestant and non-believing young people. Look ahead and give them the opportunities that history has bequeathed to them.
I have often said in debates on Northern Ireland in this House that I respect the efforts made by the noble Lord, Lord Caine, in having to deal, time and again, with the vicissitudes of Northern Ireland life. I am glad that tribute has been paid to him on several occasions tonight. I do so again, because we have been blessed, despite the shortcomings of policies that have annoyed us, by the personality and sincerity of Jonathan Caine. I want to voice that personally and on behalf of many others who are not here.
My experience of Northern Ireland has been to share the frustration of so many ordinary, decent people of all religious faiths or none that we seem to be blundering from one so-called failure or let-down to another. Now we believe in our hearts that there is the chance to move forward as part of the United Kingdom and, with our Scottish, Welsh and English colleagues, to build new understandings, sympathy and strength from our united front to face, in a very troubled world, the issues facing the next generation.

Baroness Suttie: Follow that, my Lords. It is always a privilege to follow the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, who always speaks with such authority, common sense and passion, and this evening he surpassed himself.
I, too, will begin by paying tribute to Lord Cormack. He was incredibly kind to me when I was a new Member of this House. He always looked on in a benign, almost school-teachery way. I found myself agreeing with him rather more often than I would have expected, as we would nod to one another during some of the debates on Northern Ireland and Brexit. His contributions were based on experience and common sense and were always extremely well judged. He will be sorely missed. I, too, from these Benches pass on our condolences to his family.
This has been a wide-ranging debate about identity, with some anger and passion. There have been some very good historical speeches; it is always dangerous to highlight some in particular, but I particularly enjoyed the speech from the noble Lord, Lord Bew. The noble Lord, Lord Jay, also brought an element of common sense and pragmatism. I even found myself agreeing with elements of the speech from the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, which was a refreshing change.

Lord Lilley: Never again.

Baroness Suttie: Never again, no.
The context for the debate, both in this Chamber today and in the other place yesterday, is the extremely welcome return of the Northern Ireland Assembly and Executive, which we have already debated in this Chamber on several occasions. I, too, once again place on record my gratitude to the Minister, who has personally led the way so often on taking the stalemate forward. The deal was supported by the leadership of the DUP—although, as the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, said, for those listening to today’s debate it has not always been apparent from the DUP Benches—and holding this debate was in fact part of that deal.
It is understandable that noble Lords from the DUP feel extremely strongly that they have been let down; there were some powerful speeches on that. They feel that they have been let down on several occasions since Brexit, perhaps particularly by the former Prime Minister Boris Johnson. They feel that they have been lied to and that, rightly, some of the past agreements to try to get over the impasse have been ever so slightly overspun; the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, spoke rather marvellously on that point.
This erosion of trust has led many to feel that their place in the union was not as secure as it once was. On the other hand, the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, made clear in her very strong speech that she feels that not enough has been done to give recognition in the Command Paper that there is another point of view. She even went so far as to say that she felt that it has deviated from the principles set down in the Good Friday/Belfast agreement.
On the deal itself that helped to take us to this position, I thank the Minister for his letter yesterday evening, which was still slightly short on the detail as to how some of the structures will work in practice, such as the east-west council and InterTrade UK. Instead of repeating my questions, I place on record just that I look forward to reading the guidance eventually and seeing the Minister’s future replies on these matters.
As other noble Lords have said, I hope in many ways that, following this debate, we can begin to move on. With the return of a functioning Assembly and Executive, we can begin to focus on solutions and practical alternatives, as well as vital issues for ordinary people in Northern Ireland, such as health, education and the economy. Northern Ireland has tremendous potential, with its access to trade and opportunities that other parts of the UK can be quite envious of.
The second part of the context of the debate is the union of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. It is a union made up of four separate parts, each with their own distinct and powerful histories. At present, it just so happens that all four parts of the United Kingdom have different political leaderships from different political complexions.
As the noble Lord, Lord Jay, hinted in his speech, making this work, as somebody who believes strongly in devolution, has not always been easy. In fact, respect and consultation are not all that they have been. Now that the Assembly and the Executive are back, I hope that the Minister will be able to concentrate on the consent and consultation mechanisms between the constituent parts of the United Kingdom to make sure that the Northern Ireland Assembly and Executive are properly and fully consulted in a timely manner.
On a personal level, I have very much benefited from the union. I am a Scot whose father was born in Enniskillen in Northern Ireland. I have a UK passport and an Irish passport. I left Scotland in 1990 and have since lived in London and Broadstairs in Kent and in the past lived in Brussels. I am strongly opposed to Scottish independence and the break-up of the union but do not think that you can simply declare or legislate to say that the union is a good thing. As the noble Lord, Lord Hay, said in his very positive speech, we have to demonstrate the purpose and added value of the union in the context of the 21st century and the global challenges we face. It is up to all of us who believe in the union to make sure that it is fit for purpose and that people see its added value.
The third element of the context of our debate this evening is the reaffirmation of support for the Good Friday/Belfast agreement and all its strands. Many noble Lords present this evening—including obviously the noble Lord, Lord Murphy—were personally involved with negotiating that agreement. There are also many here this evening who personally experienced violence during the Troubles, and the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, reminded us so powerfully of the importance of remembering the past as well as looking to the future.
However, it is important to acknowledge there is now also a generation in Northern Ireland who have grown up since the signing of the Good Friday/Belfast agreement—people who have personally never known that violence. They have known only the more prosperous and peaceful times in Northern Ireland. That generation have a different world view from many of the noble Lords who have spoken here this evening. Sense of identity is changing in Northern Ireland. As my noble friend Lord Alderdice said when we last debated these matters on 13 February:
“there is an emergent third community, which has a very strong view about things and which is not partisan unionist and not partisan nationalist. It takes a view that what we want to do is to find what is in the best interests of the people of Northern Ireland”.—[Official Report, 13/2/24; col. 227.]
It is also worth recalling that the Good Friday/Belfast agreement was agreed at a time when the United Kingdom was still in the European Union, and the European Union played a very important role in providing the context for the negotiations towards peace. It remains an incredibly positive and important document. It is an agreement that has been used across the world as a positive example of how a peaceful settlement can be brought about. However, the agreement is not set in aspic. Like all documents based on a series of compromises, it has to be a living document which changes and adapts to the changing circumstances in which we find ourselves. The very fact that we have had five of the last seven years—as the Minister reminded us—without a functioning Assembly and Executive shows that there is a need to revisit whether there are ways to bring about greater stability to the institutions. As I mentioned earlier, there is now also a sizeable alternative view, perhaps mostly represented by Alliance in Northern Ireland. That is another area where I believe we should look at some elements of reform.
A lot has happened since the signing of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement but it is still, I believe, an inspirational document. I was looking at it again at the weekend just to remind myself of the text. It is worth recalling that paragraph 3 of the declaration of support states:
“We are committed to partnership, equality and mutual respect as the basis of relationships within Northern Ireland, between North and South, and between these islands”.
In recent years, some of this sense of mutual respect and trust has been eroded but I sincerely hope that, for the sake of Northern Ireland, we can begin now to see a return of these values. To quote the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, it is welcome that Stormont is back and for the future generation we should celebrate that.

Lord Murphy of Torfaen: My Lords, it is always a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, on occasions such as this. She, like others, made reference to Lord Patrick Cormack. I want to put on record my thanks for his friendship over the years. I knew him for approximately 34 years, and the last major occasion I was with him was when he showed me around Lincoln Cathedral. As the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, said, I could say nothing at all. It was a wonderful visit. We will miss him as a great man—a good Christian man—and may he rest in peace.
We should also thank the Secretary of State, and particularly in this place the noble Lord, Lord Caine, for the work that he has done over the last months in bringing about the restoration of the institutions. I also want to give my best wishes and congratulations to Sir Jeffrey Donaldson on the work that he has done. I fundamentally disagree with the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, on what she said with regard to him, and as a consequence, if these matters are put to a vote later, the Opposition will oppose the amendment but support the Motion.
Much reference has been made to the Good Friday agreement. As your Lordships know, I played some part in that, both in chairing the talks on Strands One and Three and in partly writing those parts of the agreement. It is good that the humble Address refers to the Good Friday agreement in all its parts. That is the point: when the Assembly and the Executive were not functioning, the other strands ceased to exist. Therefore there is no north/south ministerial body and no British-Irish Council. It all goes—it all collapses. If there ever was a breach of the Good Friday agreement, it was the collapse of the institutions, because they are central to it now.
I understand the reasons why that happened over the last couple of years, and a number of Peers today have indicated, in great detail and with great passion, why they still feel that things are not right. However, the noble Lord, Lord Bew, talked about compromise, and ultimately that is what this is. The Good Friday agreement was a compromise, but we had to do it for it to get through. No one can get everything they want.
Let us look at those three strands. On Strand One, no one has really mentioned the issue of money but it ought to be mentioned and a question asked to the  Minister about it. It is absolutely wonderful that the Assembly is up and running and that the Executive are functioning again, but they have huge challenges, particularly in the health service and other public services. I therefore hope that the financial arrangements in the agreement will hold, and that the difficulties currently described by the Executive can be dealt with.
It was great too to see the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister together on the very day that the Assembly was restored—two women, incidentally, leading the people of Northern Ireland. It was a great picture. I agree with the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, that it was a turning point, and we have to take advantage of that. The noble Lord, Lord Hay, quite rightly gave a very optimistic speech—and why should we not be optimistic? The institutions are back and the politicians are hard at work. Yes, there are difficulties and problems, but we have to look not just to the present but to the future in all this.
On Strand Two, there is no question in my mind that it really was not talked about at all during the negotiations over the last number of months. In fact, in the Command Paper, which was nearly 80 pages, I do not think you will see a reference to a nationalist issue. I know that the reason for the negotiations was to ensure that the unionist community was reassured—of course I understand that. However, we have to remember that progress is impossible in Northern Ireland—this is the whole basis of the Good Friday agreement—unless you are able to embrace everybody, all the 2 million people who live in Northern Ireland, whether they be nationalists, unionists or, as the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, said, others. My noble friend Lady Ritchie made it absolutely clear that this is a vital aspect which the Government must address.
The noble Lord, Lord Godson, rightly referred to Strand Three and the work of the late David Trimble. In some ways, it was the least controversial of the areas we discussed in respect of the Good Friday agreement, but in another it was one of the most important, because it referred to the east-west relationship. I would like the Minister to reflect on that and to come back to us as soon as he can on the interrelationship between the institutions set up by Strand Three—the British-Irish Council in particular, and, of course, the new east-west body and the intertrade body. Where do they link in?
The point the noble Lord, Lord Godson, rightly made was that Strand Three was not just about Northern Ireland; it was about Scotland, Wales, England, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. That is reflected also in the work of the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly, the only body in these islands which continues to bring all those parliamentarians together and has done over the last three years, because it is not an institution of the Good Friday agreement. It meets soon in County Wicklow, and I am convinced that when the members meet, they will rejoice that the institutions are now up and running.
I again quote the noble Lord, Lord Hay, as a former Speaker of the Northern Ireland Assembly, because he has made a very important point. We can debate until the cows come home the Act of Union and the significance of all the different agreements  that have been made, but only one thing matters: the wishes of the people of Northern Ireland. It is nothing to do with Acts of Parliament or anything else; it is about what the people of Northern Ireland desire. There is no immediate appetite for Irish unification. There may be in the future—I do not know—but it is up to the people of Northern Ireland to decide that: the principle of consent.
There is much talk of the 1998 Act, which I took through the other place a long time ago. That rested solely on the will of the people. That is why the Irish constitution was changed. Parts 2 and 3 went because they laid claim to Northern Ireland. That has gone. It is up to the people. Equally, parity of esteem is so very important. Sometimes that has been forgotten over the last couple of years. We must ensure that political stability is addressed by all political parties and by the Government in Northern Ireland, and that at some point a system is devised making that stability permanent. We have to do that.
I finish with one statistic. When I went to Northern Ireland in 1997, 3,500 people had perished in the most terrible way over the previous 20 or 30 years. In his speech yesterday in the other place, Jeffrey Donaldson referred to the fact that last year, not one person was murdered in a sectarian attack. That is the measure of the change in what has happened to the people of Northern Ireland in terms of peace. We must now ensure stability as well.

Lord Caine: My Lords, I rise to close the debate on this humble Address and thank all those who have participated in it. I am grateful to noble Lords who have directed kind words to me as a Minister at the Dispatch Box, particularly my noble friend Lord Godson and the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, whom it is always a huge pleasure to hear speak on Northern Ireland affairs.
At some point during the discussions this evening, I was reminded of the late Willie Whitelaw’s quip about déjà vu all over again. We have gone over quite a lot of this territory as recently as a fortnight ago, when we debated statutory instruments, so with the leave of the House I might not refer to every single issue that has been raised; otherwise, we risk being here until midnight. There were a number of references to Bushmills. Duties or not, I look forward to enjoying one in about half an hour.
As I said in my maiden speech in your Lordships’ House some years ago, and as my noble friend Lord Lexden knows all too well, I am, and remain, an unapologetic unionist, steadfast in my belief that the best future for Northern Ireland will always be as an integral part of a strong and prosperous United Kingdom. We are, as a number of noble Lords reminded us, the most successful political and economic union in the world—something on which most noble Lords in this House will agree. I strongly endorse the words of the noble Lord, Lord Dodds of Duncairn, my noble friend Lord Lilley and many others about the importance and value of the union of the United Kingdom.
I also want to very briefly address the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick. Of course, we recognise that there are people in Northern  Ireland who hold a different view and desire a different constitutional outcome, and the agreement is very clear in respect of the rights of everybody in Northern Ireland to parity of esteem and equity of treatment, no matter their political aspiration. We believe strongly in upholding that.
The debate this evening has reiterated our unwavering support for the union. We have reaffirmed the importance of upholding the Belfast agreement in all its strands. The noble Lord, Lord Murphy, was right to remind us of—as I said in my opening speech—the interlocking nature and interdependence of those three strands.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, asked me about future meetings of the British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference. It is due to meet in the spring and work is in progress in that respect. The British-Irish Council is, I think, due to meet later in the summer—normally around June or July. The North/South Ministerial Council is a Strand Two matter, not one for the UK Government, but I hope it will meet very shortly.
We have acknowledged in the debate the foundational importance of the Acts of Union 1800, including the economic provisions under Article VI of those Acts. Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Bew, I have not yet consulted the speeches of Pitt the Younger during the passage of the Acts, but he has inspired me to maybe look more closely at some of the aspirations that he and Castlereagh set out at the time.
We have also, importantly, recognised that joint authority is not provided for in the Belfast agreement in respect of the UK and Irish Governments. The noble Lord reminded us of the New Ireland Forum. I will not necessarily repeat the words used by Mrs Thatcher at the time but I have strong sympathy with them, just as I do the views on the subject raised by my noble friend Lord Lexden.
The regret amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, which was supported by some noble Lords behind me, pertains to the requirements for passing a consent vote on the application of the Windsor Framework and its purported effect on the Acts of Union more generally. I note that the noble Baroness’s amendment is very similar to a manuscript amendment she moved in Committee on the Northern Ireland (Ministers, Elections and Petitions of Concern) Bill, long before the changes set out in the Windsor Framework and the Command Paper.
The noble Baroness followed quite closely a number of the arguments that were made in the court cases that took place on these issues. I gently and politely remind her that the applicants lost on all three counts in every court in the land, which she seems to have omitted during her comments.
In our view, very clearly there is no trade border, by any reasonable or sensible comparison with any other trade border in the world, for goods moving within the UK internal market. That will become clearer with the introduction of checks coming from the EU, including Ireland. I welcome the contribution of my noble friend Lord Lilley on these matters; as I say, we are confident that the changes that we have made to the protocol, through the Windsor Framework and the Command Paper, will ensure the smooth passage of trade within the United Kingdom.
Of course, if issues arise over the course of implementation, there are structures in place with the EU to try to address those matters. My noble friend will know that my views on the original protocol are almost identical to the ones set out by my noble friend Lord Lexden. I regard the Windsor Framework and the Command Paper as significant improvements on what was a particularly disappointing outcome back in the autumn of 2019. Obviously, the proof of the pudding is in the eating, but we are confident that the new arrangements will work to ensure the smooth passage of trade throughout the United Kingdom and the internal market.
In the Government’s view, the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, overlooks the reality of the changes we have made. In addition, we believe that the law is now crystal clear that the Windsor Framework is without prejudice to Northern Ireland’s place within the United Kingdom. The provision we made in law through the instrument that became law last week includes the Acts of Union; we are clear that the Windsor Framework fully respects that. Our position on these matters is set out very clearly in the Safeguarding the Union Command Paper, as I have said before. In summary, the Government believe that those Acts of Union continue to have effect today and have not been undermined.
The changes we have made now mean that the law contains important new statutory protections for any independent review of the framework to be taken forward. Those protections will ensure that a review is taken forward within one month, responded to within a set period, and that its recommendations are given proper reflection, if a consent vote is not passed on a cross-community basis. These changes we have made reflect the Government’s commitment to seeking agreement that is as broad as possible in Northern Ireland, and to ensuring that action is taken, if that agreement is not forthcoming. I reiterate that commitment once again to all noble Lords.
The Government must therefore disagree with the regret amendment, which does not reflect the reality of the statute book today or the Windsor Framework and the Command Paper, which ensure the smooth flow of trade across the United Kingdom. In the coming weeks and months, the Government will continue to deliver commitments made under the Safeguarding the Union Command Paper, and continue to work with the Northern Ireland Executive and Assembly Members to improve the lives of people living in Northern Ireland.
A number of noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Jay, whose committee I had the privilege of serving on for a period of time, my noble friend Lord Lexden, the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, and others, asked about implementation. I cannot give precise timetables, but I commit, where possible, to keeping the House updated on some of the new bodies that are proposed. A reference was made, I think by my noble friend Lord Lexden, to the Sports Minister; I can confirm that that visit is taking place imminently. The noble Lord, Lord Jay, made reference to trying to involve Northern Ireland in the evolution of new EU laws; there are UK-EU joint bodies established, which will enable Northern Ireland’s views to be fed in at an early stage. I hope that reassures him.
My noble friend Lord Lexden, in a characteristically wise and scholarly speech, referred to one aspect not included in the humble Address, which is the contribution of His Majesty and members of the Royal Family to life in Northern Ireland. I want to put on record my complete agreement with the sentiments expressed by my noble friend.
I will pick out just one moment. I was present in the Lyric Theatre in 2012 when the late Queen shook the hand of Martin McGuinness. During the same visit, she also crossed the road in Enniskillen from the Anglican cathedral to the Catholic chapel. These both demonstrated her amazing ability to bring people together. I know that this commitment is shared by His Majesty the King, who is hugely devoted to Northern Ireland.
The hour is late. We have heard a number of impassioned speeches, not least from the Benches behind me, but also from right across the House. They echoed points made in this Chamber on a number of occasions in recent weeks. I do not for one second doubt the sincerity with which a number of noble Lords have expressed their concerns—in some cases, their opposition to the Windsor Framework and the Command Paper and, in certain cases, the decision of their party leader to return to devolved government. They are, of course, entitled to their view, which I entirely respect. However, I do not believe that this view represents a majority either within unionism or across Northern Ireland as a whole. The noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, referred to some polling that has taken place on these matters. It is not a view shared by this Conservative and Unionist Government—or, I should add, by this staunchly Conservative and Unionist Minister, who believes that we now have the right basis for moving Northern Ireland forward.
I very much agree that now is the time to move on, as the noble Lord, Lord Bew, and the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, and others pointed out. We must look forward. In this respect, I commend the speech by the leader of the Democratic Unionist Party in the other place yesterday evening. As Sir Jeffrey made clear, the Northern Ireland of today is vastly different even from when the Belfast agreement was reached 26 years ago. Unionism can no longer rely on the electoral map being coloured orange and green and on its in-built majority. The Northern Ireland of today is, as has been pointed out, one of competing minorities in which the task for those, like me, who cherish the union and want to see it thrive is to reach out and win friends across traditional divides and across generations.
I will be expressly clear once again: Northern Ireland’s position is based on consent, as many noble Lords have pointed out. The task for those of us who want to see the union prosper is to consider how we broaden support for Northern Ireland’s constitutional position in the world as it is today, not as it might have been in the past. I welcome the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Hay of Ballyore, and of the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie. Central to all this is making Northern Ireland a stable, peaceful and prosperous place for everyone who lives there, regardless of their community background or political aspirations. As the noble  Lord, Lord Bew, pointed out, I very much hope that we are now entering a new era of stability in Northern Ireland.
In moving this Motion on the humble Address, His Majesty’s Government firmly believe that, with the arrangements now in place, along with the restoration of devolved government and the generous £3.3 billion financial package for the Executive, together with other financial contributions such as the Peace Plus £700 million-plus, we have an opportunity to make that vision for Northern Ireland a reality and to move Northern Ireland forward. In so doing, we guarantee Northern Ireland’s place as an integral part of this great United Kingdom.

Baroness Hoey: My Lords, it was appropriate in this debate to hear so much about Lord Cormack. I hope that his family will have been in some ways helped by so many people saying such warm words about him. I served with him for many years on the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee. I found him to be someone who always liked people to say what they thought and to speak out.
I remember going to Crossmaglen with the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee. It was the week of Remembrance Sunday. Lady Hermon and I were wearing our poppies. One or two of the members of the committee suggested, as we drove into Crossmaglen, that it might be a good thing for us to take our poppies off. Lord Cormack was very clear that we should be able to wear our poppies. After the meeting, a lady came up to Lord Cormack and me and said, “Thank you for wearing your poppy. We couldn’t wear ours around here”. That made me feel that Lord Cormack was genuinely interested in people in Northern Ireland. As we all know, he will be greatly missed in this House.
I thank everybody who has spoken. I was particularly pleased that five Members who are not from Northern Ireland spoke. I welcome that very much, because in most of the debates I have been involved with here over the past couple of years there has been only one, perhaps—sometimes not even one. Even if I did not necessarily agree with everything they said, I welcome the contributions of those five: the noble Lords, Lord Lexden, Lord Lilley, Lord Godson and Lord Jay, who chairs the very important committee, and the noble Baroness, Lady Goudie.
I particularly welcomed the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, speaking, because we go back many years to when he chaired the Friends of the Union—a very good organisation. The work he did then is still bearing fruit. There might be a need for him, even at this late stage, to regenerate the Friends of the Union, because it gave the Northern Ireland diaspora in Great Britain a way to be involved. Of course, the Irish embassy is brilliant about doing that for the Irish diaspora, but there is nothing to help people from Northern Ireland living in Great Britain. You could go to the Irish embassy practically every week and there would be some kind of reception. There is nothing like that here.
I also welcomed what the noble Lords, Lord Lexden and Lord Dodds, said about the reluctance of Ministers to give proper Answers when we ask Questions. It is even more important that the committee on the Windsor  Framework gets answers correctly, quickly and fully, but when noble Lords themselves put in Questions we get back the same Answers on practically everything—the kind of waffle Answer that does not actually answer the question. That means that we simply have to keep asking. I am very pleased that that the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, raised that as well.
It is very interesting that, apart from a little bit at the end from the Minister and from our eminent historian, the noble Lord, Lord Bew, no one actually contradicted anything in my amendment. Nobody took it on or said it is wrong. I have to take from that, given that anyone who mentioned the amendment supported it, apart from in terms of the detail, such as the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, and other Members on the Benches opposite, that it is absolutely correct, right and true.
There is no point trying to bring up all these warm words about looking to the future and progress. Of course we all want that for Northern Ireland and its people, but if Stormont is coming back, as it has, it must do so on the basis of honesty and truth about the protocol. Many of these new things and new ideas that the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, referred to about bringing Northern Ireland closer and supporting the union are very good and welcome, but the most important, simplest thing—yes, it is simple—would be for our Government to stand up for our own people and say that the protocol is not right for part of our country. The noble Lord, Lord Dodds, held up the number of laws that are being put on us by a foreign body that we have no say in whatever. How can that possibly be right?
So I am very pleased, in a way, that we have put all this on the record. It will be read in the future—not just my speech but everybody’s speeches, and people will be able to judge what is happening. All the warm words and all the waffle do not change a single fact. I have a great deal of time for the noble Lord, Lord Caine, and I know his interest in and general support for the union; but it is very interesting that he never, ever answers the question about consent. He was against it at the time, so it is a difficulty for him, but he never answers the question why the Government had to change the issue of consent. This is the one important thing to be on the basis of a majority vote and not cross-community consent. It is quite outrageous—and quite outrageous too that we never get a proper answer. Of course, we do not get a proper answer because there is no answer. There is no justification whatever other than pressure, presumably from the Irish Government and from the European Union.
I end by saying again that I am pleased that everything is on the record. I again thank all Members for speaking, particularly those who are not from Northern Ireland. In light of the fact that this is going to His Majesty the King—I am sure he will read Hansard—I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment to the Motion withdrawn.
Motion agreed.
House adjourned at 9.21 pm.